Emergency Workers: Personal Safety

Viscount Tenby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to protect emergency workers from criminal attacks when they are performing their duties.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling attacks on people serving the public. The Health and Safety Commission works with employers to tackle work-related violence. The National Health system has a comprehensive programme to reduce the risk of violence and to ensure that offenders are brought to justice. The Sentencing Guidelines Council has issued guidelines that confirm that a violent offence committed against those serving the public is an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. There has been an increase in attacks on our emergency workers in recent months and years—for example, 2,000 attacks on firemen are noted annually by the fire service and I have also received representations from the Royal College of Nursing. In view of that, does the Minister agree that a national initiative is now urgently required? It should include, among other things, the collection of accurate, up-to-date statistics; appropriate training for emergency teams that are confronting these circumstances almost on a daily basis; evaluation of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act and how it is panning out; and finally, and most important of all, liaison with education authorities to combat this mindless anti-social behaviour. In view of the terrible events of last Thursday, do we not owe these selfless, brave and committed people no less?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I add my voice to that of the noble Viscount in offering my congratulations and support for the sterling work that is carried out on our behalf by the services. I reassure the noble Viscount that the issues that he raises are well made. Throughout the criminal justice system we look at the impact on the services, and other people, of the matters about which he complains. We are collating information and we make presentations in schools to try to make sure that there is a better understanding. Across the country, there are a number of initiatives to involve young people in the services so that they have a better understanding of the issues that we so urgently have to deal with.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is our position regarding attacks on the staff of London Transport—that is bus drivers, as Tube drivers are not so accessible? I travelled on a bus in the United States and there were enormous signs stating that such behaviour is taken very seriously. It is always prosecuted and very severe penalties apply. Will the Minister assure us that the same sort of thing applies here?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a very wide range of offences, as the noble Baroness will know, from common assault right through to grievous bodily harm. Common assault has a more limited sentence, but grievous bodily harm carries life imprisonment. Indeed, the Sentencing Guidelines Council, in December 2004, made it absolutely clear that it will be seen as a serious aggravating feature if someone who is serving the public is assaulted, and will be taken into consideration by the courts.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the evidence of attacks is pretty clear, but do we know how many prosecutions have been brought against people who commit such crimes, particularly at a time when London is stretched in terms of its emergency services?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is very difficult to disaggregate the offences. As I said to the noble Baroness in answering her question, assaults can vary from common assault right through to grievous bodily harm. The noble Lord will know that we record each and every offence in those categories. Of course, an aggravated feature is usually reflected in the sentence. But we do not have clear information on every single type of employment in which the victims are involved. If I have specific details in relation to any particular service I will of course write to the noble Lord.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, do Ministers ever stop and wonder what is going wrong in our society, where people are prepared to attack public servants in this way?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as Minister for criminal justice, I can assure my noble friend that I seem to think of nothing else. One of the things that we are trying to do very urgently is to review the criminal justice process to see how our young people are affected in terms of the work being done by the Youth Justice Board and, indeed, to see what we can do to reduce the level of re-offending, particularly in relation to violent crime. I can certainly reassure my noble friend that these issues are very much at the forefront of Ministers' minds.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, following up my noble friend's question about London buses, is the Minister aware that while there are large notices on London buses, preliminary information from the bus tragically blown up on Thursday seems to have been that the CCTV cameras were not working and had not been working for as much as a month. Is it not very important in the light of the present threat, and for the reasons raised in this Question, that we ensure that cameras are kept up to date and fully operative?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course it is extremely important that cameras are kept up to date. I hear what the noble Lord says in terms of the bus in question. I remind the House that of course we cannot say definitely what happened and we are still looking at those details.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, what statistics are kept on these attacks centrally? Can the noble Baroness say whether they can be analysed by police area so that we can measure the effects of the Licensing Act when it comes into force?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have statistics on work-related violence, but those statistics, as the noble Lord is probably well aware, appear in the British Crime Survey and, indeed, the data created by the HSC. So, for instance, the British Crime Survey data shows that there were 453,000 threats of violence and 467,000 physical assaults. The estimated incident rate for threats was 1,600 per 100,000 workers. So, we have the broad spectrum. I have the other details here, but we do not have the further breakdown that the noble Lord asks for.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked whether the Government were looking at what was going wrong in our society. As I understood the Minister's reply, it focused on preventing re-offending. Does she not agree that what is going wrong is going wrong much nearer the source of life, further upstream? Will she confirm that the Government are addressing the question of what is going wrong in our schools and families, which is the root of the problem?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we absolutely are. As the noble Lord knows, the work we have done on Sure Start has made an incredible difference, particularly to deprived areas. The work we have been able to undertake in relation to introducing earlier education from the age of three and a half; the work that we have done right the way through the spectrum; the greater involvement with parents throughout our education and social fabric; and the work we are doing in the communities all comes together to try to make our society a safer and more humane one. Of course there is much for us all to do.

EU: Anglo-French Discussions

Lord Addington: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Dykes and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	What is their assessment of the recent discussions they have had with the French Government on European Union issues.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, UK Ministers and officials at all levels remain in close contact with their French counterparts. There are key areas where we are working together and making good progress on a number of dossiers. Where we have differences, such as over the budget, the United Kingdom is committed to working closely with France, as with other member states, to take forward discussion on the issue and on the future direction of Europe, in the course of our presidency.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he agree that, as a result of neither of us particularly wanting to leave the EU at the moment, and also the fact that geographically we cannot go anywhere else, close ties and links are important?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we certainly cannot go anywhere else. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the importance of all the links. I hope that I can reassure the House that United Kingdom Ministers and officials remain in close contact with French counterparts.
	There were 10 ministerial visits to France last month. The Prime Minister spoke to Dominique de Villepin shortly after the European Council. The Foreign Secretary has recently had discussions with Phillipe Douste-Blazy and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just launched the UK presidency in Paris with the French Minister for Europe. The work goes on because it is central to our interests that it should.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nothing is more likely to be inimical to the British Government's objective of getting a serious course correction in EU policy than the belief that this is a ding-dong between France and the United Kingdom? Therefore, it is important that the dialogue of which he has spoken should involve both sides, France and Britain, listening to each other's fundamental concerns and seeking solutions that address them.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree entirely. Even in the course of the past week when it was possible for those of us at Gleneagles to have discussions with French officials and politicians we were particularly attentive to listening carefully to what they had to say. They responded with a great deal of courtesy, listening attentively to what we had to say, including of course congratulating us on the Olympics.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity given by the Question to offer some congratulations to Mr Juncker of Luxembourg?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not sure that offering congratulations would be welcomed by all parts of the House with the same enthusiasm. For those reasons I should probably stick to the political questions.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is the Minister convinced that we are expressing our concerns in the European context and to the French officials with clarity? Is there a danger that the pause for reflection for which everyone is calling could turn into a pause for inertia and a vacuum into which many French officials in the French foreign office at Quai d'Orsay are pouring a range of new ideas that may not necessarily accord with our ideas for reforming Europe?
	Will he encourage his friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to listen closely to the ideas this side of the Channel for reforming Europe and taking it in a new direction, of which there are a great many, including ideas from this side? The closer they are listened to, the better chance we have of the kind of Europe that we want to see.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think that there will be a great difference of opinion. I was pleased to be able to report the number of meetings that have taken place between British Ministers and officials and their French counterparts. It is true that ideas are coming from France, but a raft of new thinking is coming from the United Kingdom Government.
	When the Prime Minister said at the end of the European Council meeting that there could be no business as usual, he signalled that we intended to make sure that our concerns on the budget, security and a sequence of crucial issues for the House and for the country as a whole would be listened to. I assure your Lordships that no opportunity is lost in making sure that we do so in a decent and civilised dialogue.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that the disgraceful atrocities perpetrated in London last Thursday offer an opportunity for improvement in Anglo-French relations, given the words of solidarity from the Mayor of Paris, Monsieur Bernard Delanoe, that we are all Londoners now?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is absolutely right. As a Londoner, someone who has lived my entire life in London, I know that those who attacked us plainly do not understand the resolve and determination of the people of London, which has always been one of the building blocks of our character. The comments made by the Mayor of Paris, and comments I received from the French ambassador on Sunday and my ability to sympathise with him, because, to our certain knowledge, four French nationals have been very seriously injured in the course of that dastardly attack, show us what old allies are for.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, to help focus attention on the issues in the European Union that really need to be addressed, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the so-called UK rebate is non-negotiable?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am asked that question fairly frequently in your Lordships' House. The answer is always the same. It is not negotiable. If the noble Lord is trying to reach towards a discussion of whether the entire European budget needs to be reconsidered—whether the absurdities of the common agricultural policy need to be reconsidered—I am sure that they will be. As far as we are concerned, the rebate is an appropriate and justifiable financial measure. Even were we not to have it, we would still be the second largest net contributor to the Community.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in view of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harrison about last Thursday's atrocity, will my noble friend comment on the reported statement of the French foreign secretary advising French citizens not to travel to London until further notice?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have not seen that advice. I usually try to check changes in advice given on websites, either by us or by others. I am not aware, but will check, whether such advice has been given. I will say only this. I do not believe that there is a major European capital that is not susceptible to attack by people who are that ruthless and show that disregard for decent, civilised societies. It could happen in Paris; it could happen anywhere else—please God, it will not do so; but London is no more dangerous than any other city.

Green Belt Land

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many acres of green belt land have been built upon since 1997.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have taken the term "built upon" in the Question to mean greenfield development within the green belt. Therefore, in England, between 1997 and 2003, on average, some 800 hectares per annum were so developed. The same figure also applies to brownfield development within the green belt, therefore making some 1,600 hectares per annum on average in total.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate that in the north and north-west, development has not increased because it has not been necessary, but does he agree that in the south and south-east, the so-called sustainable communities plan will result in large areas of greenfield sites being concreted over?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Baroness, I have to answer no. Such allegations made outside this House are preposterous and without foundation. In fact, the figures that I cited demonstrate less development on greenfield sites in the green belt than the average from 1991 to 1996. So we have slowed it down. We are also building at higher densities. The green belt of England occupies about 13 per cent of the land area; areas of outstanding national beauty about 16 per cent; and national parks about 7 per cent. Within the green belt, greenfield development is about one-twentieth of 1 per cent.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is availability of water supply taken into account in each development of the green belt?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, most certainly. It is not possible to have large developments unless the infrastructure is in place. That includes the roads, the utilities and water. While there may be problems from time to time—the noble Baroness is frowning—relating to, for example, a hosepipe ban, to achieve sustainable development, we must consider the issues of water and waste water over generations to come. Large-scale developments cannot take place unless water supplies are available and the waste can also be treated.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, are the Government considering changing the planning system in line with recommendations in the Barker review, which will force local authorities to allocate more land than they currently need for housing to be released if house prices go up in their area? Does the noble Lord agree that many commentators are concerned that if that were to happen, it would put enormous pressure on the green belt and on green land in particular?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness and the House will have to wait for the Government's pronouncement on the Barker review. As we have repeatedly made clear, a substantive statement will not be made until this autumn. It would be premature to answer that question now.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner in the green belt. Does the Minster agree that the statement in PPG2 that the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within the green belt is both illogical and over-restrictive? Would it not be more rational and less restrictive to have a grading system for green belt land, such as exists, for example, in the grading of listed buildings?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, given the purpose of the green belt, it would not be possible to have a quality issue for the green belt as a lot of it is rubbish land. That is why it is green belt. It is the band around our urban areas, and should not be confused with areas of outstanding natural beauty. Such areas account for some 16 per cent of the land in England, and green belt accounts for 13 per cent. In addition, the national parks are quite separate at 7 per cent.
	It is not possible to have a quality issue for the green belt; it is a collar to contain urban areas. Much of it is rubbish land compared to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I tabled a Written Question and received a Written Answer on 5 July on a question that was almost identical to this one? The noble Lord has now given a detailed response to the House whereas I was referred to the website of the ODPM and told that I would have to look through it region by region or local authority by local authority to obtain the information? Does he not think that it might be more helpful to Members of the House if they actually got the information that they asked for, rather than being given the brush-off?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for giving detailed answers.
	The Government have a good record over the green belt. There are 19,000 more hectares of statutory green belt now than in 1997. There are 12,000 more in the pipeline. We are the party of the green belt; we have a good story. I am sorry that the noble Baroness was referred to a website.

Lord Renton: My Lords, do the Government accept that more of England's farmland and green belt is already occupied and built upon than other parts of the United Kingdom, and that if we go on trying to house people in England, our countryside will suffer?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with due respect, I do not accept that. The figures do not bear that out. Broadly speaking, 90 per cent of England is green, consisting of various categories of farmland, green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and so on. About 10 per cent would be classified as urban. Even when the communities plan is fully in place and developments go ahead after 2016–21, that figure of 10 per cent urban will go to about 11 per cent. There is no evidence whatever to back up the assertions in the noble Lord's question.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, of the 800 hectares that have been built on each year on average, how much of that has been in the south and south-east?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have a regional figure, although the green belt has grown in the south-east and the London area by a smaller figure than the one I have given. I shall be happy to get a regional breakdown of the figures I have given and write to the noble Baroness.

Schools: Breakfast and After-school Clubs

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Elles, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	Whether the proposed breakfast and after-school clubs on school premises will be open to children over 14.

Lord Adonis: Yes; my Lords. A significant proportion of secondary schools already provide after-school clubs. The Government's objective is that such activities should be available to all pupils by 2010 at the latest.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that he is implying that there will be some flexibility on the age of the children who can remain in after-school clubs. While we agree with that in principle, we believe that it is crucially important that children who are reaching the age of 14 also should be considered; indeed, the first Question asked today was apropos of this point. Children who are growing into young people need strong supervision in order to avoid the latchkey syndrome and also to help working parents. So, does the Minister accept that it is very important also to consider children of 14 and over?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We are not talking about forcing anyone to join after-school clubs, but we believe that the provision should be made available particularly to teenagers and those over the age of 14. Our own research shows that about one-third of secondary schools already make such provision. Our survey last year showed that 62 per cent of schools said that the amount of after-school club provision they had made had increased in the previous two years, and 68 per cent said that they planned to increase it over the next two years. So we are addressing this issue.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, has the Minister had any consultations with the Department for Transport concerning the high risk that extending schools hours will—according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—also increase the risk of accidents due to darker evenings? Has he given any consideration when extending school hours to having a good look also at having lighter evenings as a government policy, rather than darker evenings, in order to save the inevitable increase in accidents that may well occur?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I suspect that I will get into very deep water if I open the question of the timing of British Summer Time. But the issue of schools making safe provision for their pupils is, of course, a very real one. We will indeed bear in mind what the noble Lord says.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, can the Minister explain what rest provisions there will be for young children in particular during these extended hours? As we know, all the research shows that young children find it very difficult to spend long periods in as structured a day as they would have to in school premises.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that kind of best practice is precisely what we are seeking to bring to bear as we develop extended schools, to see that the provision is appropriate, including provision for very young children in primary schools and in nurseries.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, can my noble friend reassure me that, with the development and extension of breakfast clubs to more children, we will be providing adequate training to new staff to ensure that the nutritional needs of children are met and that breakfast clubs do not become a bowl of Frosties in front of a video?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree, which is why we put such great emphasis on improving arrangements for school meals, including setting up the new School Meals Trust and devoting a significant additional resource to advice for schools and direct funding for schools to improve the quality of school meals, including breakfasts.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the research that has shown that children coming from deprived homes in deprived areas who are given the opportunity of having a good breakfast at school do markedly better than those who do not have breakfast, and, indeed, that the need for special education can be dramatically reduced simply by giving children a proper breakfast before they start classes?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I have seen that research. That is precisely the reason why we are encouraging schools to make such facilities available on a much more systematic basis than in the past.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a sad fact that so few schools now have playing-field opportunities that the time spent after school very often will not be spent in the open air on healthy exercise?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. The amount of sport taking place in schools is significantly increasing. We are making a record investment and have introduced regulations to prevent the sale of school playing fields. That has almost halted the sale of school playing fields. Such sales take place only in areas where there is adequate sporting provision for the schools in question. We place a very high premium on that. We are not seeing the sale of school playing fields. We are currently seeing a significant renaissance of sport in schools which we thoroughly welcome.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, two Statements from the Commons will be repeated this afternoon. The first will be on the London attacks, the second on the G8 summit. They will be both be repeated by the Leader of the House, and we shall take them at a convenient time after 4 pm.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Lord President.
	Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 19th July next to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and the Finance Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Grand Committee Motions

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Lord President.
	Moved, That leave be given for the five Motions set down for today referring instruments to a Grand Committee to be moved en bloc.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) Regulations 2005

Companies Act 1989 (Delegation) Order 2005

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 3) 2005

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Lord President.
	Moved, That the draft regulations, draft order and rules be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 April be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Crawley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2005

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2005

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the next three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 23 June, 16 June and 25 May be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Age-Related Payments Regulations 2005

Pension Protection Fund (Investigation by PPF Ombudsman of Complaints of Maladministration) Regulations 2005

Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Amendment Order 2005

Pension Protection Fund (Reference of Reviewable Matters to the PPF Ombudsman) Regulations 2005

Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005

Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations 2005

Civil Partnership (Contracted-out Occupational and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005

Civil Partnership (Pensions and Benefit Payments) (Consequential, etc. Provisions) Order 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the eight Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 23 June, 29 June, 22 June and 15 June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership (Amendments to Registration Provisions) Order 2005

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Equality Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: moved Amendment No. 74A:
	Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
	"INDEPENDENCE OF COMMISSION
	(1) It shall be the duty of each Minister of the Crown to uphold the independence of the Commission in the discharge of its functions.
	(2) Subsection (1) does not impose any duty which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to impose."

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: During the debate on the first day in Committee last Wednesday, concern was expressed by many noble Lords about the need to secure the independence of the new equality and human rights commission. That was expressed not only by my noble friend and myself, but also by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Hendon and Lady Howe of Idlicote, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and, I expect, others as well. Those views accord with the powerful opinion expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	In her extremely helpful remarks at various points, the Minister said—I hope she will not mind my quoting her but the words are worthy of recalling:
	"My ambition for the commission is that it will have the confidence of the population of this country and be able to feel that it has a sense of independence from government. That is what I am searching for in discussing with noble Lords the proposals on the table".
	She added:
	"I am trying to achieve a well defined relationship with government and with Ministers, with well defined duties and well defined powers to build confidence in all directions".—[Official Report, 6/7/05; col. 643.]
	She then said:
	"So, the door is not closed to further discussion by any means on how we make sure that the commission operates in an independent and appropriate manner. My argument is that I have not yet seen a proposal that, in a sense, moves us further forward towards how that makes the greatest sense for the commission"".—[Official Report, 6/7/05; col. 644.]
	Stimulated by those helpful and positive remarks, I racked my brains to find a way to achieve greater independence for the commission without changing the basic structure that the Government have in mind. I took a leaf out of the Government's own Constitutional Reform Bill—now the Act—where it sought to promote the independence of the judiciary against any improper government interference.
	Amendment No. 74A is an adaptation of what is already in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I do not suggest that the new commission is a court. It does of course have quasi-judicial powers—not only the power to bring proceedings in its own name as a law enforcement body, but the power to issue what are at the moment called non-discrimination notices, which unless appealed against, become final and binding. In that sense, the commission is a type of tribunal in that area. My amendment would impose a duty on each Minister of the Crown to uphold the independence of the commission in the discharge of its functions. I have been careful, as is the Constitutional Reform Act, to deal with Scottish devolution by making it clear that this provision does not impose any duty that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	What would be the practical effect of this amendment? I do not suppose that it would lead to litigation against Ministers for breach of this duty but it would serve the extremely important purpose that the independence of the commission would have been seen by Parliament and expressed by Parliament to be a vital value to be observed by Ministers in their relationship with the commission. In some future government, if a Minister were to seek in any way to sap the independence of the commission, the commission would be able to point to this provision and say, "What you're doing is contrary to the will of Parliament." It could therefore be used defensively.
	In a really gross case, if there were improper ministerial interference with the commission—by some future government, I emphasise: I am not suggesting that it would arise now but we are legislating for the future and not just the present—this would be an important provision to which the courts would have regard if there were any judicial review challenge to the way in which Ministers had abused their powers.
	If this amendment were to find favour with the Government—I do not expect an answer saying "snap" today, because the amendment was tabled only at the end of last week and will require consultation—it would have the added advantage that it would be less necessary to put in a lot of the machinery that we were debating last week in order to secure independence. Therefore, the provision has the merits of simplicity; anyone can understand it. I do not see any disadvantage from the Government's point of view, since through the Minister and others, they have made it quite clear that they intend to ensure the independence of the commission, subject always to their power to give directions. We will debate that matter later when I hope to persuade the Government that they do not need such bossy or intrusive powers. I beg to move.

Baroness Greengross: I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this amendment. It is important that there is a valid answer to reassure people who are worried about the independence of the commission. The public need to be certain of its independence, as well as the people drafting the Bill. It is a very sensible amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As he mentioned, in the second part of his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, says that the duty he is proposing would not be imposed on the Scots Parliament if the matter is within its competence. I was not able to speak to the amendments to Clause 7 which I hoped to move today, because the House progressed very rapidly last week and passed Clause 7. I will therefore not be able to do that until Report, if it seems necessary.
	The Scottish Parliament can set up a commission of its own under Clause 7, and take competence to deal with devolved matters. The United Kingdom commission set up by this Bill, however, can still operate on devolved Scottish matters if it gets the agreement of that Scottish commission. That is the proposal. None of that has yet happened, of course.
	I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that the second part of his amendment is not right. The Scottish Parliament might have competence to do certain things, but might not have taken that competence and decided to allow the United Kingdom commission to do it. I hope I understand that correctly. If I am right, possibly this amendment is not absolutely correct.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegie of Lour, has pre-empted me. I was going to begin my remarks today by telling her that I am well aware that the amendments were put down in good faith. We moved more rapidly than I had anticipated, although it did not feel rapid at the time.
	I had planned to respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness in writing, with a view to addressing her concerns, with copies to Members of the Committee. Indeed, her analysis is correct. I hope that that will at least give the noble Baroness a basis on which to decide whether to pursue the matter on Report. I would not want the noble Baroness to think that I had not thought of that.
	The need to ensure that there is confidence in this body is something on which we are all agreed—confidence, not only, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, of those who put the commission together but, far more importantly, of the nation itself and those who have a particular stake in its work.
	I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is seeking to do. It just does not work. Our difficulty is that the amendment is too broad to be really meaningful. In fact, the noble Lord himself alluded to the fact that it would perhaps not be easy to interpret. I am not quite sure when we would reach the point when a Minister had behaved improperly, based on the definition here. Neither do we think we can link it to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is a completely different question, although I can see where the noble Lord got that from.
	I say again that we are keen to continue to discuss the issues. I was mindful of the noble Lord saying that, if we find a way though this, perhaps we will not need the machinery discussed in our earlier debates. I am keen to reassure noble Lords about the independence of the commission, bearing in mind, as I said in Committee the other day, that it is important for the commission to operate in a way that commands respect and authority, and is transparent and understood. That is what led us to the NDPB model, because it is well understood both in terms of how it operates and how the people involved are appointed.
	So I say to the noble Lord that I am not against this proposal in principle. We need to think about how on earth we could make it work. I have to resist the amendment on the basis that it does not work as it stands; but we shall continue the dialogue. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask a simple question? I agree with what she has said; but thinking about independence, is it not time that the Government took a little more care about the certificate of compliance with the provisions of the convention? Over and over again, we have to deal with certificates that have been given but are, frankly, defective.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord raises an important point about the convention, but I do not think that I can deal with that specifically under this amendment, which is about the way in which the body would be set up. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I can discuss the point he raised in more detail on other occasions, probably during the passage of the Bill.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister for the understanding in her reply. She illustrates the dilemma as between generality and specificity. Last week, what I call the Goodhart amendments were criticised for being over-specific, over-detailed or cumbersome, or some such. This provision, which mimics the constitutional format in respect of the judiciary, is as vague as is that provision, which is there to protect an important constitutional value.
	Although I am an optimist by nature, what I slightly fear, given the Minister's reply, is that if I were to take away the amendment and spell out the functions that I am talking about—for example, in appointing the members of the commission "in the discharge of its functions"—that would not meet with total glee and joy in Whitehall. However, if what the Minister is saying is, "Spell out the functions more precisely, so that we know exactly what you mean", then I hope that I can undertake to do that in discussion with her department. Then, on Report, we can find a way of securing consensus. I do not know whether that is what the Minister has in mind.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: What I am really saying to the noble Lord is that we should try to have the dialogue. It was not actually me who described the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as cumbersome. I think that the noble Lord himself said, in moving them, that he was not sure they were quite right. There were some difficulties about how it would all work in practice. What we are all seeking is to ensure that the Bill—and the operation of the commission—establishes the right relationship between the Government and the commission. It also must make sure that we have confidence about its independence. It would be much better if the noble Lord sat down with me and officials to try to work this through, rather than him trying to come up with what he rightly says is yet another version of the same change.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful. That is a sensible way of leaving the matter for the moment. I should add, since I did not do so before, that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, was sorry that her duties as the first Civil Service Commissioner prevented her being here at this stage. She asked me to say that she certainly supports the aim of the amendment and the idea of writing something on the face of the Bill. Having regard to all of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Equality and Diversity]:
	[Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 4, line 7, leave out paragraph (d).

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wish to move this very modest amendment in my name. In doing so, I really want to comment on the meaninglessness of the Bill as a whole. It has a spray of adjectives which has all the effect of confetti. There is very little meaning.
	It is not entirely relevant, but I feel obliged to say how much I sympathise with the Minister, who—if I may put it in unusual terms—has been landed with this awful baby by its true father, the Lord Chancellor, who is not visible at all. He will not, I believe, take any part in the Committee stage, but perhaps he might do us the favour of appearing occasionally during the Report stage to defend his child, and to attempt to invest some of the clauses with the shadow of meaning.
	I regret that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not in his place, because he is of a similar mind to me. Whereas I want to leave out subsection (1)(d),
	"promote awareness and understanding of rights under the equality enactments"—
	although any one of these could conveniently be left out as far as I am concerned—he wished to leave out the next line,
	"enforce the equality enactments".
	There does not seem to be an awful lot of difference.
	Do the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have their eye on a possible chairman? The chairman will have to make something of this Bill and give himself some real meaning before he wields the terrible powers with which he will be invested. The clause starts with the words:
	"The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part".
	Those powers, in Clause 14, amount to publishing, researching, educating, advising, arranging for a person to do anything, and acting jointly with, co-operating with or assisting a person doing anything. I cannot help feeling it could all have been put more briefly.
	There was a moment the other day when I was frightened that this Bill was going to be an instrument of oppression. At the moment I have gone to the other extreme. I think that it is an absolute nothing, a complete nimbus, an absence of anything except cloudy rubbish. I hope that the noble Baroness will endeavour to invest it with some meaning, in which case I shall listen with rapt attention. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with great pleasure. He never understates when an overstatement would serve the purpose.
	The position is that ever since 1975, if not before, similar language has been included in both the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. As I have mentioned before, both measures had the wholehearted support of great Conservative statesmen, such as Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, and many others. Indeed, language of this kind was included in one of the best discrimination laws I have ever seen, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which was introduced by the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, for Northern Ireland and had exactly the same aspirations in the equality field.
	The Race Relations Act 1976 is just one example. It speaks not only about working,
	"towards the elimination of discrimination",
	but also about promoting,
	"equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups generally".
	It deals with research, education and promotional activities.
	One of the great merits of this holistic Bill, in the sense that it brings together the different strands of equality, is that the promotional side, rather than litigation and a case-based Commission, is what has been settled upon in relation to human rights. Changing the culture of respect for human rights through the activities of the commission is extremely important. At the moment, the only body that does so in a broad way is the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we are only a committee of parliamentarians; we do not have all the underpinning that the commission will have. For that reason, and many others, I firmly oppose the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for an interesting and important contribution to our deliberations. I do not feel at all "landed" by this Bill; quite the opposite. It is an enormous pleasure to be taking the Bill through Parliament, especially as I have spent much of my life working on issues to do with discrimination and equality.
	The Bill originated as a Department of Trade and Industry Bill, so one might argue that it is the Lord Chancellor's Department taking it through on behalf of that department. My noble and learned friend will be participating in further stages of the Bill; and, had he been able to, he wished to do so at earlier stages. It is my personal view that one of the jobs of junior Ministers is to take a Bill through Committee to enable those more senior to reflect on the strategic approach that we need on Report and at Third Reading. My noble and learned friend is far from not taking his responsibilities seriously on the Bill.
	I could not agree more that the appointment of the chairman will be important. I do not know whether anyone has someone in mind, but I am sure that a lot of thought will go into ensuring that the right person is found. I also recognise what the noble Lord said about putting things more briefly. The noble Lord will know from his own experience that one of the things about parliamentary counsel is that they do not use three words when one will do. In fact, sometimes I have been in the opposite camp of arguing to add a couple of words, which would certainly have made the passage of some of my previous Bills easier through your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will know, we have already undertaken to look again at Clause 3 to see what we can do around that issue.
	The noble Lord described going from one extreme to the other. My ambition for the end of this Bill is that I can firmly place him in the middle. I do not know whether I will achieve that aim, but that would be my ambition—that the noble Lord feels that the Bill is where it should be.
	The clause sets out the duties of the commission in a reasonably succinct way. It is important to do that because we have in Parliament a long and proud tradition of giving individuals legal protection against discrimination, which goes back to the 1960s. We also know, not only as parliamentarians and legislators but also as citizens, that rights on their own are meaningless if people do not know what rights they have. That is particularly true of the most vulnerable in our society. We need to make sure that we enjoy the standards that we hold dear in this country of equality and fairness. We have legislated for them, and we need to ensure that people are aware of them. Where we have high-quality, consistent advice that raises awareness and improves understanding, there is no doubt that, in a sense, we do not have as much reliance on the courts to decide what is lawful and what is not lawful. That applies as much to individuals who may want to protect their rights as it does to employers and to service providers who have responsibilities under the law.
	We have tried to set out in this clause the duties of the commission in a way that is easy to understand; that is clear about what it is doing; and that recognises the importance not only of having rights but also of ensuring that people are aware of them. That is why it is important to do so. We think that what we have done in the Bill is provide a much more flexible response from the commission—a proportionate response that means that we can make sure that it deals with particular issues as they arise in a much more succinct and coherent way. In a sense, this is all about the framework for doing so. I will always look at the wording to make sure that we have got it in exactly the right place, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it is really important as it sets out the framework for the Bill. Despite his important contribution, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the noble Baroness who, though she has not satisfied me in any way, has at least addressed the matter with some courtesy and suggested that there is something in my argument. I seriously object to a Bill that is so vapid and empty of meaning. I have a good deal of sympathy with whoever becomes the chairman, because that unfortunate person will have little except straw with which to make bricks— and these days straw does not make very good bricks anyhow.
	Before I withdraw the amendment, I shall say how much I appreciated the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, commented with characteristic generosity on what I said. I greatly appreciate it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 4, line 11, at end insert ", and
	(h) work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services in respect of all groups or classes of persons described in section 11(2)"

Baroness Turner of Camden: Amendment No. 79 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Gibson.
	On Second Reading, I pointed out that Lesbian and gay people are still not protected against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. I understand that there will be a new equalities Bill where this omission could be dealt with. However, in this Bill, while provision is made to provide protection against discrimination in these areas on grounds of religion or belief, no such provision is made for gay and Lesbian people.
	There is a great deal of evidence available about discrimination in the private sector, by insurance companies, holiday companies, hotels and also by public services such as the NHS. Stonewall has cited a number of instances of discrimination and claims that it is quite widespread. Hotel and holiday accommodation can be refused to gay couples and there is no legal redress at all because there is no right against such discrimination. In terms of policing, recent statistics show that the number of homophobic attacks is on the increase. We still have a fair amount of homophobia around. Many Lesbian and gay people feel unhappy reporting crimes involving their sexual orientation due to fears of not being believed, or even of being ridiculed.
	The TUC also supports the need to amend legislation in order to provide protection against such discrimination. It says:
	"Such discrimination is widespread, and occurs in a variety of ways such as refusal of health care, insurance and housing".
	Part 2 of the Bill already takes this step for religious discrimination. We believe it would be right also to include parallel provisions on protection against sexual orientation discrimination at this stage, rather than leaving it to wait until the single equality Act.
	I had some difficulty in devising a suitable form of wording because of the way in which this Bill is framed. I have therefore added it to the list of requirements that the commission should seek to deal with, and then relate that to the communities listed in Clause 11(2) of the Bill, which includes sexual orientation. I hope that I have managed to achieve my objective, which is to provide in this Bill parallel protection for gay, Lesbian and bisexual people in the same way as protection for religious people is provided. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I entirely agree with the aim of the amendment. Indeed, in Amendment No. 212B and in other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and myself, we have sought to write into Part 2 discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and to do so in a fairly detailed way.
	I speak now purely as a technician, and I apologise. My difficulty looking at this amendment in isolation is that one cannot give the new commission these functions which cover sexual orientation at age until Parliament has decided on the exact scope of the substance of the provisions, and the exceptions to them. It is difficult to phrase exceptions appropriately. I believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, do that, and we will come to that much later. However, if one were to imagine this commission faced simply with a provision of this kind, with Parliament not having taken the key decisions on what is the scope and what are the exceptions, then the commission itself would have to make up the exceptions as it went along. It would find it hard, for example, where it was balancing the issues of personal privacy and sexuality.
	I entirely agree with the aim; my Private Member's Bill tried to do the same thing, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is trying to do the same thing. However, the amendment on its own would not work. On those technical grounds and not for any other reason, I believe that it is not the appropriate amendment at this stage.

Lord Alli: Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I support the intention behind the amendment. Before I turn to the specifics of amendments, I apologise to the Committee for not having been present at Second Reading. My noble friend Lady Massey kindly emphasised my concerns at Second Reading.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for having raised the issue at Second Reading. The elimination of unlawful discrimination in goods, facilities and services is not only a technical tidying-up of the equality laws. As she said, there is evidence of discrimination in a range of services in both the public and private sectors. There are still examples of gay men and women being refused double beds in hotels. There are examples of women being refused smear tests because of their sexuality. When I read Hansard, I was encouraged to see how much support there was in the House for extending those protections to cover sexual orientation with immediate effect.
	I am sure that the amendment is designed to tease out from the Government what they will seek to do in terms of rectifying this mischief. As the Minister knows, I have tabled a series of amendments—Amendments Nos. 212B to 212U—to give effect to what Amendment No. 79 seeks to achieve in terms of sexual orientation.
	I should say to the Minister that this is a serious and pressing issue in which there is no financial cost to Her Majesty's Treasury, merely a compelling and pressing need. I will come back to the issue in more detail when I speak to my amendments later. However, I give her notice and fair warning that I take the issue very seriously. If the protections are to be given to other vulnerable groups in the Bill, I shall press very hard for them to be given at the same time to gay men and women.
	I wholeheartedly support the intention of the amendment and await with some interest the reply from the Front Bench.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I shall speak briefly as I put my name to the amendment, to support what my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden said. I hear and am mindful of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I have worked with him on equality issues over the years, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Both supported the amendment in principle. It is a probing amendment, and I also await the Minister's response with interest.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken. I take seriously what my noble friend Lord Alli and other Members of the Committee said about the importance of the amendment and the recognition of the need to address the issue. As he said, there was a great deal of recognition at Second Reading that the law in the area is far from perfect, to put it mildly. As Members of the Committee said, one key area of concern is that the law does not provide protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation or gender reassignment in the provision of goods, facilities and services. In many other points—some technical, some more substantive—there is a strong case for reforming and extending our current anti-discrimination framework.
	One job of government is to make sure that we look at those areas carefully and get them right, but I am persuaded that the principle that everyone should receive appropriate and effective protection from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and, indeed, public functions is the right one.
	The Committee will know that we announced, as my noble friend indicated, our intention to review discrimination law and look in detail at the best ways to address the current gaps and difficulties. That work is under way. A proper investigation of how the law should be shaped, particularly in important areas such as providing protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services is a key area for the discrimination law review.
	The review is intended to give us proposals that will give a fairer, simpler and more effective framework, and will enable the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to introduce a single equality Act in the lifetime of this Parliament.
	As I have set out, we are taking steps to address the problem. But the new commission can carry out enforcement work only with the legal framework of discrimination and human rights law that exists at any point in time, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. So while the commission can work towards eliminating unlawful discrimination only in areas where such discrimination is indeed unlawful, there is no reason why the commission cannot promote good practice in areas where discrimination of this sort is not yet unlawful. I hope that noble Lords will feel that that is an important part of what the commission should be doing.
	I recognise the seriousness with which this issue has been raised and I undertake to have further conversations and dialogues with our noble friends in particular who have raised this as an important aspect of the Bill. I shall also seek over the coming weeks to ensure that we are able to give more detail about the way in which we will be taking this forward.
	I say to my noble friends simply this—there is an open door; there is no question but that this Government and this Minister wish to do this. We are simply discussing when and how to make sure we do it properly. What I will not do is to find ourselves in a position where we do not do it well enough. That will be really important in our discussions too.
	On the basis that I take it very seriously, that I recognise that this is an area that we need to address, that we need to give not only reassurance but commitment as to how we will do that, I hope that my noble friend will at this stage feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response and also noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his help over the technical side of the amendment. As I said when I introduced it, I had some doubts as to the way in which I had gone about it. I knew what I wanted to achieve, but I was not certain whether my wording had achieved it. It is quite clear now that it has not achieved what I wanted. That being so, and in the light of the assurances given by my noble friend—I accept and know that she does take these issues very seriously—I am very willing to withdraw the amendment. There will be another opportunity to come back to this issue in later amendments, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 4, line 11, at end insert ", and
	( ) conduct its affairs in the public interest and with an appropriate degree of independence"

Baroness Miller of Hendon: Clause 8(1) instructs the commission on the manner in which it shall both achieve the aims of the Bill and, at the same time, on how it shall exercise the substantial powers it is given to enable it to do so.
	Most, if not all, of the list in paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (1) will be found in the Acts which the Bill, in effect, consolidates; for example, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. But there is one notable addition required to that list, and the purpose of this amendment is purely to rectify that omission.
	The amendment instructs the commission to conduct its affairs both in the public interest and with an appropriate degree of independence. It is probable that the second strand of that instruction is much more significant, because being obliged to conduct its affairs in the public interest should merely be regarded as dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" of any statutory organisation fulfilling a quasi-judicial function. However, underlining the need for the commission to act independently is extremely relevant.
	Let me say at once that I am not in any way impugning the integrity or mindset of any chairmen, present or past, of the bodies that are being amalgamated into this organisation, nor of any future chairman of the new commission that the Bill is creating. What concerns us and what should concern the Government—any government—is that the commission should be independent of any pressure or attempt to influence its activities and decisions either by the Government or any Minister or senior official, or even by some populist campaign by any part of the media.
	In the latter respect I emphatically do not single out the so-called red-top newspapers, and by "senior official" I include chairmen of public inquiries who may look into a particular problem and come to a particular conclusion, suggesting a particular remedy. In that case, the commission, while taking the inquiry report into account, should not consider itself absolutely bound to follow its conclusions and recommendations, thereby having its statutory functions usurped.
	What gives us concern about the potential danger to the independence of the commission is the number of times throughout the Bill that the Secretary of State is given power to direct the commission to carry out certain functions. For example, Clause 15(4) provides that:
	"The Commission shall comply with a direction of the Secretary of State to issue a code".
	Clause 17(1)(a) provides that the commission,
	"shall comply with a direction of the Sectary of State to conduct an inquiry".
	Clause 22(2) provides that:
	"The Commission shall investigate a matter specified in subsection (1) if directed to do so by the Secretary of State",
	and so on.
	I have found similar instances scattered throughout the Bill. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by enumerating them all because I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues have tabled a large number of amendments to reduce the influence of the Secretary of State on the work of the commission. Some of those amendments have already been spoken to and some remain to be called. Indeed, my inspiration for the wording of this amendment was that used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in Section 39(2)(b) of his Equality Bill in 2003, which your Lordships passed.
	I also do not include either Henry VIII provisions in the Bill giving the Secretary of State power to amend legislation or the power to issue instructions to cover the transition from the three commissions to just one.
	What concerns me is, first, that the commission should not be seen as a mere political instrument of the Government; and, secondly, that the power to direct the commission's activities in those particular circumstances should not create an atmosphere within the commission that makes it feel that it should, even in cases where there is no such direction, take into account what it supposes, rightly or wrongly, are the views of the Government.
	Perhaps I may suggest an admittedly extreme and hypothetical example to illustrate the point. Let us suppose that a Minister had pronounced The Satanic Verses an affront to the Muslim community—which I am absolutely certain no Minister has ever done or ever would do. That would be no reason for the commission to take or support any action against Mr Rushdie or to institute any inquiry of its own volition unless it independently came to the same conclusion.
	This is essentially a probing amendment. We seek an unequivocal statement from the Government that the commission can rely on the fact that it will be able to carry out its functions without the Secretary of State breathing down its neck or pursuing it with a stream of suggestions, memos and e-mails. In other words, we seek a statement that, despite the fact that the commissioners are appointed by the Government and hold office at the Secretary of State's pleasure, the commission truly is independent, as any quasi-judicial organisation ought to be. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for referring to my Private Member's Bill. When I looked at the amendment I did not realise that I was responsible for those words. I also entirely agree with the substance of what has been said. We will address the over-bossy and prescriptive parts of the Bill when we come to them later.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That is the second time that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has used the word "bossy" today. It is clearly going to be his word of the day.
	There is very little between the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and us on this. I agree that it is very important that the commission conducts its affairs in the public interest. Indeed, the Cabinet Office guidance which I looked at is very clear that while non-departmental public bodies operate independently of government, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for the public money spent by and on them. The money is a critical part of this. The commission is also accountable to the public for the service that it provides.
	The noble Baroness will also know that the chief executive of the commission will be the chief accounting officer, as is normal practice. He or she will be required to prepare a statement of account each year. In that way the commission will be under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office and the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee. All of that is very important in the use of public money and in the concept at the beginning of the amendment, which is about operating in the public interest.
	We have already talked about independence several times today, and it dominated our proceedings the other day in Committee. I agree with a lot of what is being said about the relationship between the commission and the Government. We do not want the commission to be a creature of any government, nor do we want Secretaries of State breathing down the neck of the commission with—I loved this idea—memos and e-mails.
	So we are trying within the Bill to get this right and to make sure that that relationship is appropriate. As the noble Baroness said, we shall come later to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the relationship of the Secretary of State.
	Without pre-empting our later discussions, "getting it right" means that there is a relationship between the Secretary of State, as accountable to Parliament, between the commission, between the public money, and ensuring that with serious major issues where the commission could be involved, that that relationship is right too. So I do not want to rule out the relationship at all; I want to make sure that it is in the right place.
	I hope, on the basis of what I have said about the relationship of non-departmental public bodies to money and the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, that I have reassured the noble Baroness about the public interest. We will talk further about independence. I would simply say to the noble Baroness that I think the amendment is unnecessary, because I believe that the way the commission operates, as we have set it out, would guarantee that element of public interest. Of course we will talk further about independence.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness finishes, would it not be a good idea to have paragraph (h) at the bottom of this list in Clause 8, which indicates that all this should be done in the public interest. It is possible to get so carried away with equality and diversity issues that a commission might begin suggesting things which are unreasonably expensive or which perhaps cater for people who do not have any disability of the kind for which they are catering in a certain place.
	I remember many issues of this sort in the past. For example, buses were required to be equipped for blind people in a glen where there had never been a blind person and there was not one at the time. It seemed very unreasonable to everybody. That is a small example. It is problematic. This somewhat airy-fairy list—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton's criticism of it—is a strange way to legislate. But if one does do this, it would not be a bad idea to put at the end that whatever is done should be in the public interest. The public interest must be considered by the commission as well as the specific issue of disability, race, or whatever it is. I think that the Government should consider that. On those simple grounds, if no other, I would suggest that they do not completely disregard my noble friend's idea.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I never disregard the ideas of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I was trying to indicate that it is absolutely within the words already in the Bill and the way in which the commission will operate. The concept of public interest and equality go together. I do not see them, in any way, being in contradiction. The point the noble Baroness made about the way in which this is interpreted and how it is enacted goes to the heart of the work of the Disability Rights Commission, the concept of reasonable adjustments and trying to make sure that we address issues properly and coherently.
	That means thinking very carefully about what we do, when, and how we ensure that that is done effectively and properly. So whether the buses were right or not could, in a sense, depend—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does the noble Baroness agree with me that if the commission were not to act in the public interest and misused its powers that the courts would stand ready to review its abuse of power?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can always rely on the lawyers to give me the legal reasons. Indeed, I am more on a philosophical point, which is that the concepts of equality, human rights and public interest fit together perfectly well. But, as I have said, we always keep the language of the Bill under review in the light of what people have said. I am always reluctant to add more words where noble Lords have expressed the fear that there are too many words, and perhaps not always the most succinct words, within the Bill already, but I will of course take the point.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy for their support. As I said to the Minister, this is a probing amendment and I will read very carefully what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

London: Terrorist Attacks

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last Thursday's terrorist attacks in London. The number of confirmed dead currently stands at 52; the number still in hospital 56, some severely injured.
	"The whole House, I know, will want to state our feelings strongly. We express our revulsion at this murderous carnage of the innocent. We send our deep and abiding sympathy and prayers to the victims and their families. We are united in our determination that our country will not be defeated by such terror but will defeat it and emerge from this horror with our values, our way of life, our tolerance and respect for others, undiminished.
	"I would also like us to record our heartfelt thanks and admiration for our emergency services. Police, those working on our Underground, buses and trains, paramedics, doctors and nurses, ambulance staff, firefighters and the disaster recovery teams; all of them can be truly proud of the part they played in coming to the aid of London last Thursday and the part they continue to play. They were magnificent.
	"As for Londoners themselves, their stoicism, resilience and sheer undaunted spirit were an inspiration and an example. At the moment of terror striking, when the eyes of the world were upon them, they responded, and continue to respond, with a defiance and a strength that are universally admired.
	"I will now try to give the House as much information as I can. Some of it is obviously already well known. There were four explosions. Three took place on Underground trains—one between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street; one between Russell Square and King's Cross; one in a train at Edgware Road station. All of these took place within 50 seconds of each other at 8.50 am. The other explosion was on the No. 30 bus at Upper Woburn Place at 9.47 am.
	"The timing of the Tube explosions was designed to be at the peak of the rush hour and thus to cause maximum death and injury. It seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists, of the kind who over recent years have been responsible for so many innocent deaths in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt and Morocco; of course in New York on September 11, but in many other countries too.
	"I cannot obviously give details of the police investigation now underway. I can say that it is among the most vigorous and intensive this country has ever seen. We will pursue those responsible—not just the perpetrators, but the planners of this outrage—wherever they are and we will not rest until they are identified and, as far as is humanly possible, brought to justice.
	"I would also like to say this about our police and intelligence services. I know of no intelligence specific enough to have allowed them to prevent last Thursday's attacks. By their very nature, people callous enough to kill completely innocent civilians in this way are hard to stop. But our services and police do a heroic job for this country day in and day out, and I can say that over the past years, as this particular type of new and awful terrorist threat has grown, they have done their utmost to keep this country and its people safe. As I saw again from the meeting of COBR this morning, their determination to get those responsible is total.
	"Besides the obvious imperative of tracking down those who carried out these acts of terrorism, our principal concern is the bereaved: the families of the victims. It is the most extraordinarily distressing time for them and all of us feel profoundly for them. Let me explain what we are trying to do.
	"The majority—although I stress not all—of the victims' families now have a very clear idea that they have lost their loved ones. For many, patterns of life and behaviour are well enough established that the number of potential victims can now be brought within reasonable range of the actual victims.
	"Some 74 families now have police family liaison officers with them. In addition, we have established—with Westminster City Council, the Red Cross, police and others—the Family Assistance Centre. This is presently at The Queen Mother Sports Centre. Tomorrow it will move to a more suitable site at the Royal Horticultural Halls in Westminster. I would like to thank the many organisations involved, including the Salvation Army, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, Westminster City Council and all those counsellors who are helping to staff the centre.
	"In this way, we are doing our level best to look after the families. My right honourable friend the Culture Secretary has taken charge of this aspect, as she has done before.
	"More difficult is the process of formal identification. The police are proceeding here with some caution. In previous terrorist attacks of a similar kind in other countries, mistakes have been made that are incredibly distressing. The effect of a bomb is sometimes to make identification very hard and harrowing. There is now a process in place, involving a group chaired by the coroner, which will in each case make a definitive pronouncement once the right procedures are gone through. I wish it could be quicker, but the only wise course is to follow precisely the advice of the coroner and police, and that is what we will do.
	"At some time and in consultation with the families, we will be ready to join in arrangements for a memorial service for the victims. Her Majesty the Queen has kindly said she will attend. Two minutes' silence will be held at noon on Thursday. This will be an opportunity for the nation to unite in remembrance.
	"There is then the issue of further anti-terrorist legislation. During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act earlier this year, we pledged to introduce a further counter-terrorism Bill later in this Session. That remains our intention. It will give us an opportunity, in close consultation with the police and the agencies, to see whether there are additional powers that they might need to prevent further attacks.
	"As to timing, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary pledged to publish the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn with introduction in spring 2006, so that Parliament had time to digest the report on the operation of control orders produced by the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile. I do not currently see any reason to depart from that timetable.
	"However, that is subject to this important caveat. If, as the fuller picture about these incidents emerges and the investigation proceeds, it becomes clear that there are powers that the police and intelligence agencies need immediately to combat terrorism, it is plainly sensible to reserve the right to return to Parliament with an accelerated timetable.
	"Finally, I would like to record our deep appreciation of the huge outpouring of international support for London and for Britain over these past days. The G8 leaders demonstrated complete solidarity and also commented with an awe that gave me a lot of pride in Britain, on the courage of our capital city and its people. The UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution of condemnation of the terrorists and support for Britain. The IOC sent a resolution of support.
	"Messages have been received world-wide. There have been immediate offers of help from all the world's main intelligence agencies. An emergency meeting of the EU JHA Council will take place later this week.
	"7 July will always be remembered as a day of terrible sadness for our country and for London. Yet it is true that, just four days later, London's buses, trains and as much of its Underground as is possible, are back on normal schedules. Its businesses, shops and schools are open. Its millions of people are coming to work with a steely determination that is genuinely remarkable.
	"Yesterday we celebrated the heroism of World War II, including the civilian heroes of London's blitz. Today, what a different city London is. It is a city of many cultures, faiths and races, hardly recognisable from the London of 1945. It is so different and yet, in the face of this attack, there is something wonderfully familiar in the confident spirit that moves through the city, enabling it to take the blow but still not flinch from reasserting its will to triumph over adversity. Britain may be different today but the coming together and the character are the same.
	"I say to our Muslim community that people know full well that the overwhelming majority of Muslims stand foursquare with every other community in Britain. We were proud of your contribution to Britain before last Thursday. We remain proud of it today. Fanaticism is not a state of religion but a state of mind. We will work with you to make the moderate and true voice of Islam heard as it should be. Together we will ensure that although terrorists can kill, they will never destroy the way of life we share and which we value, and which we will defend with such strength of belief and conviction that it is to us and not to the terrorists that victory will belong".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of this side of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Of course, the correct response to such events is resolve: resolve on the part of this House and of Parliament; of our Government and Opposition united; and of the people of London and of Britain as a whole. The past few days have shown that common and unswerving resolve. I hope that the noble Baroness will take to the Prime Minister the sense of the whole House that his leadership in these days has been secure, purposeful and effective.
	I ask the noble Baroness to reflect to Her Majesty the Queen the courage that we drew from her inspirational personal words to hospital workers. Those workers were a representative sample of the many, many thousands of emergency workers, security services and agencies, police, fire-fighters, paramedics, medical staff, transport staff, the British Red Cross and others who have been and still are doing their duty tirelessly and honourably. I know that the noble Baroness will convey our thanks to all those fine public servants for the courage and commitment that they have shown in the most trying and testing conditions.
	Was it not also inspiring, against that background, to see at the weekend the gathering in Whitehall of remarkable and brave women, led by Her Majesty, who recalled the courage, sacrifice and service of millions of women in a truly great time of trial? If those who perpetrated the foul and cowardly crimes witnessed that peculiarly British event, would they not realise how great and unsinkable is the spirit of this city and this country and how futile is their pathetic and perverted cause? The past few days have brought out the abiding dignity, humanity and quiet courage that is the true British character.
	I also thank the Home Secretary for his wise words on the subject of identity cards. I believe that it is wise to conduct constant appraisal of the background of these events, although for the moment, surely the House feels that the full attention of all those involved must be given to bringing the murderers to justice. As we carry out that continuing process of appraisal, we need to reflect on what will actually help in defeating terrorism and what will not.
	When we have concluded that and not before—I welcomed the Prime Minister's words on this—we need to focus legislative time and the taxpayers' resources on those things that unite, not divide, and on those initiatives that really help towards a solution. It would have been tempting for some to seek to exploit these events to justify further erosion of our ancient liberties. It is to the credit of the Home Secretary that he did not. The only ones who win when democratic liberties are lost are the enemies of democracy themselves. We should take stock and proceed together.
	I do not expect the Government to fail in their duty to protect the citizens of this country, but equally I do not expect the House to flinch in its duty of protecting our liberties and of scrutinising the Government's legislation.
	Will the noble Baroness also express the thanks of the House to the world leaders at the G8 who stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain at this time? Food may divide us, but freedom unites us all. These events have reverberated around the world, but where they have been felt most keenly is in hundreds—thousands, indeed—of ordinary homes.
	Our deepest sympathy goes to the families and friends of those who have died and those who have been maimed and scarred by the experience and memory of these events. We mourn with them. We share their grief. Nothing will ever console them, but nothing would fail them more than that we should lack resolve.
	I will not ask the noble Baroness to give more details than those she has given. I know that she, as our Leader, will always ensure that the House is fully informed. Will she join me in one thing? There are those who are saying in the Arab world that Britain is seeing this as an attack by Islam against Britain. Will she repudiate that, and does she share my view that this was not an attack by Islam, but an attack on Islam—on the image of a great religion; on the innocent Muslim people who died, were bereaved or were injured; and on a city of London that is not only a great Christian city but a Jewish and Hindu city and a Muslim city, where so many Muslim Londoners make their home?
	The world needs to understand the totality of the failure of these criminals to divide, to destroy or to sow despair. Rarely has this city or this country been more united. In the coming days, we look forward with hope and expectation to a growing chorus of voices from British Muslims calling for these criminals and their fellow travellers to be cast out and unequivocally condemned. Truly, they are the enemies of right-thinking and God-fearing people everywhere. Their murderous identities may still be unknown to us, but, with our combined resolve, justice will soon inexorably be upon them.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, from this side of the House, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. First, I pay tribute to the resilience of the people of London, which has been widely reported by the international press. The most powerful weapon that we have against the terrorist is the strength of our diverse society, which exists in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. We also associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and extend our sympathy to all those who have suffered.
	We need to thank the police and MI5, who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, have foiled at least eight terrorist attacks in Britain. Much of their work is secretive and often goes unreported. We do not support the call for an inquiry into intelligence failings. An internal inquiry is inevitable at the appropriate time, but we see no case at present either for a public or a judicial inquiry. It will deflect resources at a time when the priority is to catch the perpetrators of such vile crimes.
	We must not allow terrorism to erode our civil liberties. We must not hand a victory to the terrorists by giving in to the temptation to legislate to remove freedoms. The Prime Minister helpfully made the same point in his initial statement from Gleneagles. Let me confirm that my party would accept the need for a new prevention of terrorism Act. A new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism is now due. We should also reopen the debate on lifting the ban on the use of telephone taps and intercepted e-mails in court.
	I should like to put some questions to the Minister. The Commission for Racial Equality is now monitoring the tensions that may arise as a result of the bombings. What discussions have taken place with the Muslim community and what policing resources are directed to preventing attacks on Muslims and others of Asian appearance?
	We support the Government's desire to push for a decision in the length of time that communication service providers should hold telephone and Internet data. The current system is voluntary, confused and ineffective.
	Will the Government publish their views on the report of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties of May this year? There is always a temptation after such terrible events for the Government to rush through new legislation curtailing freedoms. That would be a mistake. We shall support a proportionate measure, arrived at after a slow and careful process of assessing the evidence. The priority must be to catch the perpetrators. If that means more resources for the police and the intelligence services, we should provide them.
	There should be a relentless campaign to apprehend and prosecute those who have challenged our way of life. They have shown no mercy to the law-abiding citizens of London. We, on our part, will deal with them according to the democratic values that they have denied to those who were injured or who lost their life.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Dholakia, for their comments and, in particular, for the unity of purpose that has been demonstrated across the Chamber this afternoon.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that these terrible incidents have demonstrated the importance of the nation working together. I thank the noble Lords for the positive things that they said about the leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and of the Government, but we should thank all our political leaders for the dignified way in which they have responded to this terrible tragedy. We should thank our faith communities and faith leaders, who yesterday made an important joint statement from Lambeth Palace, and of course our emergency services. We have all thanked them. We should also thank the people of London and of Britain, who have responded magnificently. I will of course relay the message from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to Her Majesty the Queen.
	On future legislation, I thought that I had made it clear that the timetable that was set out for future anti-terrorist legislation was the timetable that we would like to follow. That includes pre-legislative scrutiny, but, if the police and the security services require more powers more quickly, we would want the option of bringing that to the House. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that we would seek consensus, if it is possible.
	I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the importance of not curtailing freedoms. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded in a dignified way over the past few days to those issues.
	On the issue of democratic liberties, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I cannot think of any other country in the world where the demonstration that is going on right outside Parliament this afternoon—right outside my window—would be going on. We should take immense pride in that.
	Reference was made to the messages of support that we have received from world leaders and others. I can also report that we have received messages of support from other parliaments, and I am sure that the House would like me to respond to them on its behalf. Of course, I undertake to keep the House fully informed of progress.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that it was not an attack by Islam against Britain, and of course I agree. We can be immensely proud of the diversity of our city. Strong signals have been sent by the Muslim communities in the United Kingdom expressing their horror at the attack. We all need to work together at this point. There is no more important thing to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we need to focus on catching the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. I confirm to the noble Lord that there have been discussions with the Muslim communities. They will be ongoing, and we have had a very positive outcome.
	On policing resources and communication service providers, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not answer his questions now. It is part of an ongoing process. Of course, we have to learn from these experiences, but our resources at the moment are entirely focused on finding those responsible.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by my noble friend about the atrocity that occurred last Thursday. We all know that atrocities have occurred in the past, and there have been more than enough apologists for those actions, unfortunately. I am pleased to hear that my noble friend has confirmed that further anti-terrorism legislation will be introduced to the House in the near future. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government expect all-party support for that legislation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place. In speaking of the importance of us all coming together to fight this issue, he reiterated the importance of trying to seek consensus on that legislation. That is what we will seek to do.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend assure us that, if the Government are forced to concede or decide to concede an inquiry into these matters at a later stage, the intelligence aspects of that inquiry will be dealt with by the Intelligence and Security Committee, not by some other Whitehall-inspired committee, which could lead to the same kind of criticisms as were made on a previous occasion?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that, at this point, we do not think it helpful to divert the resources that need to be focused on finding the perpetrators into having an inquiry. Of course, the ISC, which was re-appointed today as part of its ongoing work, will have a role in reviewing what has happened to date. That will happen without a doubt. However, with respect to any future inquiry, we need to put that question on one side for the moment and focus on finding those who perpetrated these terrible outrages against our capital city and then take it from there.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If, at any time, there has to an inquiry, it should be completed by the ISC and no-one else. Otherwise, we are simply making a present of knowledge to our enemies. I need hardly say that this is no time for inquiries. People are working on a major issue, and they should not be diverted.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that there should be no diversion of resources to an inquiry. However, we had the re-appointment of the ISC today. As is normal, it will of course look at the issues and incidents and make a full report.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House able to tell us at this stage how many other countries, police forces or security forces are helping us with the inquiries that are ongoing?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, we have had offers of help and support from all the major intelligence services throughout the world. Some of that help and support has already happened. Of course, as our inquiries deepen, we may well look at others for help and support. It has been offered, and it will be taken up where needed.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, many Muslim Members of your Lordships' House spoke on the issues on Thursday, in response to the Home Secretary's Statement, so I will not dwell on those matters. I will ask the Minister whether she would agree that, when factual information is imparted by the Government in their search for the identities of the terrorists, it would be wise to make a clear distinction between those who may be Muslim but are foreign citizens and those who are Muslim and British citizens. I say that in a spirit of friendship to the Government, but, as the Minister will know, the Muslim Council of Britain is recording a large number—thousands—of low-level incidents, but incidents nonetheless, directed against the Muslim community in the UK. My suggestion would be in order to deal with the situation in a calmer framework.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we abhor any incidents against the Muslim community in the UK. As the Prime Minister and others have made absolutely clear, we know that the majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom—and, indeed, elsewhere—are moderate. This is not about Islam. It is clearly a terrorist attack and an attack not only on our way of life. Looking at the countries that have been attacked, noble Lords may recall that the first attack on the World Trade Centre was as far back as 1993.
	It is important that the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, which has played such an important role in the development of our country, feels safe and secure and does not feel under attack from the leadership of this country. We have made our support for them absolutely clear.

G8: 2005 Summit

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With your permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 Summit, which I chaired at Gleneagles last week.
	"There were two major issues on the agenda for this summit: Africa and climate change. These subjects were chosen because they represent huge problems for the world which require concerted action by the international community. Africa is the only continent which, without change, will not meet any of the millennium development goals. Although there are success stories in Africa, 4 million children under five die in Africa every year; 3,000 children die a day from malaria; 50 million African children do not go to primary school. Life expectancy is plummeting. By 2010, it will be down to just 27 years in some countries, so Africa is an immediate moral cause which commands our attention.
	"Climate change is perhaps the most long-term serious threat to our environment. Already, sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 1 million square kilometres. The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1991. Sea levels are rising. Until now, however, the international community has been divided, with no agreement on the nature or urgency of the problem, what to do about it, or how to start a discussion which would involve both the United States and the key emerging economies such as India and China.
	"On Africa, the Commission for Africa, which I established last year, set out a comprehensive plan for dealing with the continent's problems.
	"At Gleneagles, we agreed a doubling of aid for Africa—that is an extra $25 billion a year by 2010—as part of an overall increase of $50 billion for all developing countries, which will start to flow immediately. This was made possible by a series of new pledges by G8 partners in the weeks before the summit, notably the European Union's aid increase of an extra $38 billion, the American and Canadian decisions to double aid to Africa, and Japan's pledge of an additional $10 billion over the next five years.
	"This is a mighty achievement, not just for the summit but for the millions of decent people worldwide who have campaigned so long and hard. I would like to thank not only fellow leaders but my right honourable friend the development secretary and, most particularly, my right honourable friend the Chancellor for their work in securing this.
	"In addition, again thanks to the work of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we agreed to cancel 100 per cent of the multilateral debts of the highly indebted poor countries. This could amount to a total of $55 billion of relief. We also agreed a special package of debt cancellation for Nigeria, worth around $17 billion.
	"The G8 put particular emphasis on health and education in Africa. We agreed free primary education and basic healthcare for all. We agreed specific measures: on HIV/Aids, to provide as close as possible to universal access to treatment by 2010; on malaria, to reach 85 per cent of the vulnerable with bed nets and drugs in order to save 600,000 children's lives a year by 2015; on polio, the UK has agreed the funding to eradicate polio this year, and the G8 has agreed to ensure that the programme is fully funded in the years ahead.
	"But this help will not make a difference unless we also take action to end conflict and create conditions of stability. That means, above all, supporting the African Union's ability to deploy its forces to prevent and resolve conflicts. We confirmed our commitment to train and equip 75,000 troops by 2010, mainly for Africa, including for the 20,000-strong AU standby force.
	"On trade, we agreed that we should establish a credible end date for agricultural export subsidies. The British Government want the Hong Kong world trade ministerial meeting to agree an end date of 2010—and I believe, on the basis of my discussions last week, that this is possible. We also agreed at Gleneagles concrete measures to build Africa's capacity to trade, and recognised poor countries' need to determine their own economic and trade policies.
	"This was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. This is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every government in Africa that betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa. The G8 unanimously deplored recent events in Zimbabwe. The UN Secretary-General told us that his envoy will report back to the United Nations Security Council, and will do so within days.
	"This summit, of itself, cannot end poverty in Africa; but it should mark a turning point. I pay tribute to the organisations around the world that care passionately about Africa, and made their voice heard to the G8 leaders in the run-up to Gleneagles. It was a remarkable and brilliantly led campaign by people who have long demonstrated their commitment, and I particularly praise the contribution of Make Poverty History and the organisers of Live8. Faith groups, schools, businesses and many millions of concerned people attached to no formal organisation made their demands, protested for them reasonably and gave political leaders the support they needed to turn a campaign into victory.
	"In respect of climate change, our discussion included the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. We were able here to do four things.
	"First, we agreed that climate change was indeed a problem, with human activity contributing to it. Secondly, that we had to tackle it with urgency. Thirdly, that in order to do that, we have to slow down, stop and in time reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Gleneagles adopted an action plan to exploit cleaner technologies which meet our energy needs and safeguard the climate, including measures to develop technologies such as bio-energy and cleaner coal, to promote energy efficiency, and measures to finance investment in clean technologies in emerging economies.
	"Fourthly, we put in place a new dialogue involving the G8, the emerging economies and the key international institutions. The purpose of this is to create a pathway to a post-Kyoto agreement, so that, when Kyoto expires after 2012, the world can act with unity. The new dialogue between the G8, the G5 and others will have its first meeting in the United Kingdom in November.
	"The G8 also gave its strong support to the Middle East peace process, and pledged its support to a package of assistance worth up to $3 billion a year to Palestine. We gave warm backing to the mission of Jim Wolfensohn, the quartet's envoy for disengagement, who reported to us at the summit. I continue to think that progress in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians is an enormous part of creating a fairer and more secure world.
	"Inevitably, some will be disappointed with aspects of the G8 Summit. But, on any realistic basis, on the two hardest issues on the international agenda there was progress—in the case of Africa, immense progress. We now have to build on this, using our presidency at the UN Summit in September and the Hong Kong ministerial meeting on trade in December.
	"Of course, the task is now to implement what has been agreed, but assume we can. If so, millions of children will not die when otherwise they would have. Africa will change its destiny from one of decline to advance. The values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law will be strengthened further still. And on the environment, if we can implement what has been agreed, today's largest economy can achieve agreement with the largest economies of tomorrow to get the framework, technology and policy in place to reverse the threat of global warming. Such progress, if achieved, would be the most poignant and powerful riposte to the forces of terrorism."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement.
	A few weeks ago we were told that this was to be a summit of historic dimensions. The fact that it was relegated to the inner pages may have been the result of an appalling tragedy, but it may also prove to be a more realistic assessment of the outcome. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his energy, and we welcome some of the modest conclusions, but the summit fell far short of addressing the real issues that need to be addressed.
	I increasingly sense that there is a tendency to think in tramlines on this issue, when there is a growing cause for an urgent reappraisal of our approaches, from renewed investment in nuclear power to the advancement of carbon-free technologies and, as the US Government have rightly argued, growing investment in cleaner use of existing technologies.
	On climate change, there is perhaps more room for debate than the zealots on both sides admit. The noble Lord, Lord May, said the summit was a "disappointing failure". With respect, I do not agree with him, but, on the other hand, I cannot agree with the over-hyped response of some of the government briefing, that the conference was a triumph.
	Has the Minister had an opportunity to see the outstanding report by the Economic Affairs Committee on the economics of climate change? Its conclusions are blunt, original and compelling. I hope she can find time to schedule a full government response and a debate on this report before the next discussion on climate change by the G8 and its associate forums.
	What is the Government's policy on nuclear power? Is it true that even the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is urging renewed commitment to this technology? While on nuclear power, what was the G8's latest assessment of the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea, and what new action was agreed?
	On parts of the summit concerning Africa, I warmly welcome the commitment to action on malaria and HIV/AIDS. Is there any question of renewing the use of DDT in the fight against malaria?
	I note the further pledges on aid and debt relief. They answered a widespread call, are well-intentioned and may well assist many. But how can we ensure that debt relief and aid will benefit the African people and not corrupt regimes? What monitoring will be done, and by whom? Will this and other initiatives be limited to Africa? Do the Government consider that there is a comparable problem of poverty in parts of Asia and Latin America?
	I was less pleased with those aspects of the communiqué that covered free trade. That is surely a major part of the solution to the difficulties of Africa and indeed parts of Latin America. Subsidies and protectionism by the developed world to protect the developed world have no place in any rational programme to help Africa, as the Prime Minister appeared to be recognising. Yet the commitments in the conclusions are thin gruel indeed. What is the so-called "credible end date" by which trade and agricultural goods will be opened, as pledged in the communiqué? Did the Prime Minister take his campaign against the CAP into that wider forum, and was President Chirac isolated in those talks?
	I welcome the common reaffirmation by the African leaders to strengthen democratic institutions and to pursue a policy of zero tolerance of corruption. I wonder whether that includes the corrupt dictatorship of Mr Mugabe. President Mbeki was there. What specific actions did he pledge against Mugabe? Did they include the freezing of the movement of assets by Mugabe's henchmen? The noble Baroness will no doubt have shared my astonishment that the communiqué even mentioned Zimbabwe. This is nearly the twentieth Statement that I have taken following an EU or G8 Summit and called for action on the Zimbabwe tyranny. Finally, we have a few words calling on the Zimbabwean authorities, as the communiqué puts it, to address the situation that they have created. We are long past the days when any faith can be put in the Zimbabwean authorities to address any misery. This is an African disaster and Africa must assist in finding the solution.
	The recent tragic history of parts of Africa has all too much to do with bad government, wickedness and the exploitation of African by African. In the last generations, the giant populations of the Indian subcontinent and of China have been steadily lifted from poverty by their own exertions, by stable government, and by peace. Africa needs able leadership in politics, public service, the professions and health, whereas far too many people are being drawn away to careers in other continents. We must sustain that leadership wherever it is given and challenge it wherever it is wanting. That will want clear-headedness as well as idealism inside Africa and outside. We must not fail in that task.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. While she was speaking I tried to obtain a copy from the Printed Paper Office, but I was told that it was not available. I suspect that the discussions are continuing in another place, but it would have been helpful to understand some of the figures that she mentioned in the Statement she repeated.
	I offer our thanks to the Prime Minister for focusing the G8 Summit on two issues—Africa and climate change. The contrast between what the world leaders were trying to achieve at Gleneagles and the events in London on Thursday could not have been more sharply drawn. Does the Minister agree that the agreements made by the G8 countries at Gleneagles will be judged not by the promises made but by the outcome of the promises kept? It would be helpful to know what mechanism exists to ensure that all G8 members fulfil the pledges that they have made. Are there adequate systems of monitoring on the basis of which some conclusions can be reached?
	Does the Minister agree that the success of the initiatives relies to a great extent on the willingness of African leaders to take this opportunity to improve the lives of their citizens, root out corruption and improve governance? How much of the £50 billion increase by 2010 is new money? Will our share be drawn from DfID's existing budget or is it supplementary to it?
	We welcome the $3 billion aid to the Palestinian Authority. The two-state solution will require the authority to tackle the problems of its people and terrorism and to root out corruption.
	On trade and the elimination of subsidies, there is clearly a long way to go. There is a lot of disappointment on environmental issues. There is an impression that a potential deal has been watered down to get the US onboard. What we need is a country-based, target-based successor to Kyoto. Were any specific steps agreed to reduce emissions? Overall, this is a move forward, but there is still a long way to go.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, if the Statement was not available. I understand that the policy is that the Statement is not made available until the person giving it has actually sat down. It may be that we started slightly too early. My apologies for that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, called the conclusions of this G8 Summit "modest". I really cannot agree. The conclusions of this G8 Summit on Africa are unprecedented. Only a few weeks ago, with the Prime Minister having set the bar so high, some said that we would fail to achieve the doubling of aid for which we were looking. We have achieved a doubling of aid to Africa. Until now, the debt relief initiative has been focused on the debts owed to other countries. This goes much further than that, dealing with the debt owed to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the Africa Development Bank. It is a major step forward and it is important that the House recognise that.
	I watched the Prime Minister's statement at the press conference post the summit. He made it clear that, on climate change and on trade, he would have liked the summit to go further. He was absolutely clear about that. But he was also realistic about what could be achieved with the eight leaders around the table.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there is a plan of action on climate change that covers measures to transform the way in which we use energy, including driving down transport emissions, cutting emissions in energy-intensive sectors, and cleaner appliances; measures to promote cleaner power generation, including cleaner fossil fuels and a new bio-energy partnership; measures to promote cooperation in research and development between the G8 and major emerging economies, including research networks; and measures to finance the transition to cleaner energy as well as measures to manage the impact of climate change and measures on illegal logging. It is a comprehensive action plan. This was never intended to be a summit where targets were renegotiated or new targets put in place.
	On trade, noble Lords will know from all the discussions we have had in this House that the UK would like to see much faster progress on ending subsidies not only within the European Union but in the world's other rich countries. In fact, the Labour Party made a commitment in its manifesto to working for an end date of 2010. The Prime Minister, as a result of the discussions at Gleneagles, hopes that that will be the credible end date agreed at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December.
	On Zimbabwe, we are of course waiting for the report from the UN envoy which will be made to the UN Security Council. The one thing on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, regarding Zimbabwe was his comment that Africa must assist in finding the solution. That has always been my position across this Dispatch Box; it has clearly taken him a long time to agree, but I am delighted that he has finally agreed.
	I also agree with the noble Lord that African countries need able leadership. Although I recognise the major challenges and difficulties facing the continent, I for one have been pleased to see the progress in many countries over the past few years. Recent examples of the fight against corruption include Nigeria and Rwanda. There has been a shift to increasing stability and democracy in many countries.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right that the agreements made at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles will be judged by the outcomes and implementation. That is why there was so much stress on implementation.
	I was asked about the proportion of new money. We set out to seek a doubling in the aid to developing countries, with half of that going to Africa. We have achieved a doubling of that aid, with a commitment to half of it going to Africa. The proportion of that that will be new will depend on the starting point of each country that has made the commitment.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we have a long way to go on trade, but it is also important that we remember that the European Union, in terms of market access, has the "Everything But Arms" initiative. It means that the least developed countries have access to the European Union market on everything but arms.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that it would be a good deal easier to respond to the G8 Summit conclusions if they were available to Members of this House in advance of the Statement? They were not, I think; I certainly tried all morning and over lunch to get access to them. I am not talking about the text of the Statement in the other place, but the G8 conclusions, which were completed on Friday night. It is difficult for any Member of the House to comment without their being available.
	On a more positive note, does the Minister not agree that the G8 Summit put in place a number of extremely important building blocks for a successful UN summit in September, and that the task is now to carry that forward into the wider agenda? Will she say something about what Her Majesty's Government, with their presidencies of the G8 and the EU, plan to do before September to ensure that those building blocks are put together and improved on? Will she say a little about non-proliferation, which seems to be missing from the Statement but is perhaps in the G8 conclusions, which I have not seen? It seems to be a gaping hole in the plans for a successful summit in September.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I apologise again. I was not aware that the G8 conclusions had not been made available. The system has clearly broken down in some way, and I shall investigate and ensure that it does not happen in future.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right—we have always seen this as a process. We did not see the Commission for Africa, or indeed the G8 Summit, as an end in itself. We saw 2005 as important not only because we held the G8 and EU presidencies, but because you have the major millennium review summit in New York in September, followed by the meeting on trade in Hong Kong. There is a wider agenda for the UN summit that includes not only security and development, but UN reform. We will work with our European Union partners, G8 partners and the Secretary-General of the UN—he was at the summit, of course—to ensure that the agreements coming out of the summit feed into that wider agenda in September.
	On the issue of non-proliferation, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I did not see that in the conclusions, but I may have missed it.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how welcome it is that, despite the enormously pressing main items on the agenda, time and money was found to support the Middle East peace process. Would she agree that given the considerable political risks that leaders in the Middle East are taking at the moment, it is vital that their electorates on the ground see real improvement in their situation, and that in that context investment in the infrastructure and the economy in Gaza will be crucial?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hayman is right. The G8 leaders saw support for the Middle East peace process as an important element of the G8 Summit. There are huge political risks attached to this, but my noble friend is right, there needs to be investment. We want to see a thriving economy established in Palestine and that is what we will work towards.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement that people in developing countries should have free and fair access to drugs for treating HIV/AIDS. However, I am sure that the Minister knows that if those drugs are not administered correctly resistant strains of the virus will emerge and make them useless. Can she tell us whether that was discussed by Ministers at the G8 and whether they can ensure that a really good health infrastructure will be in place to ensure that the drugs are administered correctly?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, what is absolutely clear on HIV/AIDS, and clear from the discussions at the G8 and elsewhere, is that we have to focus on three things: prevention; treatment, and seeking to find a vaccine. Building up health systems in developing countries is an important part of prevention, but it is also important with respect to treatment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, said, these drugs need to be administered correctly. So we see this very much as a holistic, integrated approach; and certainly as part of the way that the UK Government seek to work on HIV/AIDS in developing countries, it is the integrated approach that we take.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lady the Leader of the House about, as usual, Zimbabwe. She quoted what was decided at the G8. Since the country is now in a state of near collapse, what degree of urgency was given in the G8 to the need for an immediate report? As far as I remember, Kofi Annan's envoy has been there for over two weeks. The noble Baroness has spoken about a UN summit in September. I doubt whether the country can wait until September.
	I should also like to ask whether the AU said anything about its envoy from its own Human Rights Commission who was supposed to have gone to Zimbabwe and report. I do not know whether he has done so and, if he did, whether that was discussed at the G8. I would like to be assured that there was a real sense of the desperate urgency of action. We cannot wait until some meeting in September.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I apologise if I have confused the noble Baroness, Lady Park. There is a major UN millennium review summit at the UN in September, which is the annual meeting attended by heads of countries. That is entirely separate from the report that will be made by the UN Secretary-General's envoy to Zimbabwe, which will be made to the UN Security Council. I think that the envoy has now left Zimbabwe. He will report to the Secretary-General and the Security Council as a matter of urgency.
	My understanding is that the African Union envoy was kept in the hotel in Harare and was unable to leave to conduct any kind of a review and therefore left the country.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say that the European Union and the United States have agreed to end their agricultural export subsidies by 2010? If so, I suggest that that is even more important than increasing aid and debt relief. Secondly, will the Government study the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which is published in today's Times and makes five very feasible points about energy and emissions?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the issue of an end date for agricultural subsidies, the Government have committed themselves to working for an end date. In its manifesto before the election, the Labour Party stated that, were we to be returned as a government, we would work for an end date of 2010. The G8 and the EU have agreed to work to establish a credible end date. In his press conference following the G8 Summit, the Prime Minister said that, on the basis of the discussions, he thought that a credible end date would be agreed at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December. So we have an end date that we would like to see and we are working to persuade others that that should be the end date.
	On the matter of the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is an expert on these matters, the House always listens to him with great attention when he speaks. The Government will look at his letter and the proposals made in it.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I apologise for having arrived one minute late for the noble Baroness's Statement. Has she not noticed that this side of the House has said that it is up to African countries to solve of the problems of Zimbabwe? In addition—but clearly the noble Baroness has missed it altogether—we also said that the Government are not doing enough to persuade African countries to do that. I feel sure that noble Lords will be pleased with the announcement of the payment of $3 billion to the Palestinians to help them to perform their side of the road map, but who is going to provide the money?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the Government have not been doing enough to work with their African partners. Noble Lords will know that that is something into which I put a great deal of stress and effort when I was Africa Minister. That was continued by my honourable friend Chris Mullin and the baton has now been taken up by my noble friend Lord Triesman.
	However, as I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, this Government's voice on Zimbabwe is much weaker than it should be in the international community because of our history and because of what previous governments did by not challenging what happened in Zimbabwe with respect to UDI, land and other elements. That is the reality that has to be recognised. I was reminded of this only last week when I participated in a "Question Time" programme from Johannesburg where the view of the public in African countries, including South Africa, is very different from that which has been expressed by noble Lords opposite.
	With respect to where the money for the Middle East is to come from, I understand that it will be part of the development funding that comes from G8 and other countries.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there was any discussion at the G8 about signing up to the UN Convention Against Corruption? If so, is there a timetable for the countries involved?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the answer to that is "Yes". In fact, I think that there may be mention of it in the communiqué. I remember reading it. It may not have been in the communiqué, but it is certainly there. A timetable was not agreed for all the countries, but the noble Baroness will know from previous discussions in the House that the United Kingdom hopes to sign up by the end of the year.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not recall that UDI by the Rhodesian government of the day occurred under a Labour government?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I said, "previous governments". I am also aware of the discussions across the Dispatch Box on the issue of land and land reform. The perception, not only in South Africa and Zimbabwe but in many other African countries, is that on the question of land reform very little was said to support black Zimbabweans when their land was taken away. I have heard that view from those in Africa itself, and I have tried to bring it to the attention of the House.

Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from somebody who in government—a long time ago—and in my professional career has never encountered a spell during which so much consistent leadership has come from the most senior levels of government on issues crucial to the future of humanity—a pledge that we wish the Government nothing but good will in the fulfilment of the undertakings made at Gleneagles?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement. My noble friend is often a critical friend on such matters, and I am heartened by his comments this afternoon.

Equality Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	Clause 9 [Human rights]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 4, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I can move the amendment briefly and simply, not because I am in any way unaware of the importance of human rights but because I think that they are so obvious.
	I wish to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 9. The clause states:
	"The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part—
	(a) promote understanding of the importance of human rights".
	I simply cannot believe that anyone appointed chairman of the commission would need to be told that. Any reasonably enlightened person would not need that kind of instruction. Yet the clause and, in my view, the Bill is full of such rather empty, vapid instructions.
	A little later on in the same clause, subsection (3) states:
	"In determining what action to take in pursuance of this section the Commission shall have particular regard to the importance of exercising the powers conferred by this Part in relation to the Convention rights".
	I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give me a brief explanation not only of what it means but of why it is necessary. What does it add to the Bill?
	This is not the first time that I have complained in the House about the unnecessary volume and size of Bills, and I do so again without apology. Of course, I would not dream of going on at any great length; I am fearful of having yet another paean of praise thrown at my head by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg to move.

Lord Ampthill: I remind the Committee that, if Amendment No. 83 is agreed to, I cannot called Amendment No. 84, which has already been debated.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I fear that it is the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and I who will debate the issues. The first thing that I want to say about Clause 9 is that it is the first time we have set out in legislation the human rights issues in the context of the commission. That in itself is important. The noble Lord has already taken me to task on the use of words and the wordiness of the Bill, but he will understand my defence that it is important to be clear about the commission's work and role and to place them in the right context.
	It is important to allay the other concerns that noble Lords expressed at Second Reading about the body being somehow not controlled through legislation and therefore in a sense through Parliament in the context of what it is seeking to achieve. Clauses 8 and 9 are about the commission's role and the way in which it will discharge its functions.
	In Clause 9, we are trying to be clear about the relationship between the commission and the different conventions on human rights. For example, when we talk about "other human rights" in Clause 9(2)(b), we are talking about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the commission's role under the Paris principles and so on; we will debate those issues later. Equally, we are trying to make sure that the commission is aware that it has a responsibility to promote to bodies their need to take human rights seriously.
	I take note of what the noble Lord says and, as I have always indicated to him in the House and outside, I will look again at the language. So the essence of the clause, with which he may or may not agree, is to set out clearly for the first time the relationship between the commission and human rights; to be clear that it has a responsibility to promote understanding of what those rights are; and to be clear that it has a responsibility under the Paris principles as the body that considers carefully the rights bestowed through other pieces of UN or EU legislation.
	That is the context. I am not sure that I will have satisfied the noble Lord, but that is the explanation that I can give him, and on that basis I hope that he can withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to detain the Committee. I wish only that I could take as friendly a view of the Bill as I do of the noble Baroness. I do not want to torture her, and therefore I will not ask her to explain to me again what subsection (3) means, as it seems that the Bill would not be impoverished if the words were taken out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]

Lord de Mauley: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 4, line 23, at end insert ", and
	(e) promote awareness and understanding of the fact that in appropriate instances human rights involve the person whose rights are protected in concomitant responsibilities"

Lord de Mauley: The amendment would add a new obligation on the equality commission to promote awareness and understanding of the fact that in appropriate instances human rights involve the person whose rights are protected in concomitant responsibilities.
	I am conscious that in the Human Rights Act 1998 it is the public authorities who owe responsibilities to individuals. However, for reasons that I will explain, I believe that this is an area where debate might be valuable. In 1997, a group of senior politicians from all over the world produced a report on a proposed universal declaration of human responsibilities. Among those who gave their unqualified endorsement to that document were the late Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, as well as Mr Jimmy Carter.
	In that document, they referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and expressed the view that it was now time to initiate an equally important quest for the acceptance of human duties or obligations. They said that, in any society, freedom can never be exercised without limits; that the more freedom we enjoy, the greater responsibility we bear towards others as well as ourselves; and that we must move away from the freedom of indifference to the freedom of involvement.
	They also said that, when freedom presents us with different possibilities for action, including the choice to do right or wrong, although a responsible moral character will ensure that the former will prevail, sadly that relationship between freedom and responsibility is not always clearly understood. What is needed is a body to take responsibility for spreading understanding that responsibilities are the absolute corollary of human rights.
	I acknowledge that the consensus has been for the judiciary to emphasise that the majority of rights are qualified, but a great deal of the courts' time and taxpayers' and defendants' money may be wasted before that point is reached. It would be far better that people should be educated, and what better body to take responsibility for that education could there be than the equality commission?
	It is also instructive to see how a religion from another part of the world considers the issue. Rather hesitantly, therefore, being completely unqualified to do so, I quote from Dr Chandra Muzzaffar, an Islamic scholar who wrote:
	"the Quran lays out . . . our responsibility to self, family, relatives, the community, the state".
	He says that, in Western society, the intricate balance between rights and responsibilities has been eroded by an obsession with rights.
	The importance of maintaining the link between right and responsibility is underscored by the grim tragedies unfolding in a certain sphere of social and human relationships. The AIDS phenomenon is tangible evidence of what can happen when the insistence on the exercise of one's sexual rights is not accompanies by a deep sense of sexual responsibility.
	There are many other examples: the Travellers who move in and erect structures that flout the planning regulations but insist that any attempt to enforce those regulations breach their human rights; the terrorist who sues the police force that managed to shoot at him while he was exploding his bomb; and the imprisoned murderer who uses the human rights card to sue for solitary confinement, which was awarded for confrontational and threatening behaviour towards prison staff. Those are not isolated cases; they are only some examples. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is well established in human rights case law, international and domestic, that a fair balance must be struck between the rights of the individual, the rights of others and the rights and interests of the community at large. Nothing in any of the international instruments, the Muslim scholar notwithstanding, gets wrong the balance that must be struck and maintained. In authoritarian societies, there is danger of suggesting that the individual owes obligations to the state of a coercive kind as the price for, let us say, freedom of expression. That reactionary position is not accepted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as I understand it.
	Under Clause 9 (1)(a), the commission is to,
	"promote understanding of the importance of human rights".
	I am sure that it will be able better to inform the public, in the light of some of the more ignorant attacks on human rights and human rights instruments, that that is indeed a balanced charter of rights, not one with any absolutes. Even the right to life, one of the most fundamental rights, has never been interpreted as absolute in all circumstances. In the examples given by the noble Lord of terrorists—or, I would say, child abusers—the Roma or any other citizen or non-citizen who abuses human rights, it is clear under all the international instruments that an abuse of human rights is not permissible. One is always trying to strike and maintain a fair balance.
	When the Human Rights Act 1998 was born, ignorant and sometimes malicious attacks were made on it by some sections of the media, especially the tabloid media, suggesting that a right of privacy of a kind that would coerce them would come out of it. Headlines such as, "Charter for Crooks" were frequently bandied about by some sections of the media.
	Our judiciary and, I daresay, the European judiciary have managed to strike and maintain a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the general interests of society. I know of no crazy case, even though the media predicted that the measure would lead to huge litigation and crazy cases. I have been unable to find any decision of an appellate court that has not struck a fair balance. Some would say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, is among them—that the judiciary may have been more cautious than it might have been in the ways in which it has struck that balance.
	I do not think that either in European or British case law or in the texts themselves there is any need to focus on the obligations of individuals in the sense suggested. It is all enshrined in the texts and case law. One of the valuable things about the commission is that it will explain better than I have done the fair balance that must be struck and maintained.

Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, always puts us right on the law. Surely there is an argument that most of us are not lawyers and are unaware of the case law. Constant reference to human rights without reference to responsibilities can be extremely misleading to ordinary people. My concern is the responsibility of parenthood and associated family issues. For that reason, I give a guarded welcome to the amendment or something along the same lines.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the noble Lord. Human rights are not absolute. Of course, there are responsibilities, but they are built into the rights in question.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I say to the noble Lord, Lord de Mauley, that we agree that it is important for people to take their responsibilities seriously. That has framed a number of things that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said over the years. It certainly frames the respect agenda being pursued in the Home Office to ensure that people respect their communities.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, there is the concept of balancing human rights. They are not absolute but must be balanced against the rights of others and the wider interests of society. There is little to divide us. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, understandably raises the question of the responsibility of parenting. It is an issue that the noble Lord and I have discussed many times.
	We are all in agreement, but the question is what the amendment would do. The difficulty is that it positions responsibilities as a means of earning human rights, and we cannot accept that as a way forward. In a sense, human rights represent the irreducible minimum of proper treatment that we accord to every member of our society and to every visitor to our shores. They are not earned, nor may they be unreasonably withheld.
	I disagree with the terms of the amendment, in the sense that it could not be put into the same balancing scales, but I agree with the sentiment behind it. On that basis and in the hope that the commission will develop its programmes in a way to reflect what is suggested in the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord de Mauley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his comments, which are worthy of our careful consideration. I acknowledge what he said about the more extreme press comment. I said that education would be helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his guarded support and helpful comments. I thank the Minister for her response, which I had anticipated. Although I may not entirely agree with her, this is not the time to press the point. Perhaps I shall rethink the wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) In determining what action to take in pursuance of children's human rights, the Commission must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I give apologies for the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is unable to be here at the moment, but who has also put her name to the amendment.
	We are trying to achieve in this amendment the objectives we stated last Wednesday in dealing with Amendments Nos. 75 and 84. We seek to strengthen Clause 9(4) by inserting a further sentence stating that the commission should have "particular regard" to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in determining what action needs to be taken. I will not go on at length; as I said, everything that had to be said about this has already been said. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for raising this issue again. I understand her concern, as I understand the concern of my noble friend Lady David, to ensure that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and all of the issues connected with that are properly recognised within the commission. That wording is not in the Bill because it does not need to be. The noble Baroness will already have heard me talk about lists and my concern not to end up with a number of different conventions being mentioned. I suspect that, if we accepted this amendment, we would end up with a whole series of further amendments asking for the inclusion of other conventions or issues in the Bill.
	As we have already indicated, it is very important that the commission take its responsibilities seriously. As the noble Baroness will know from my work on the Children Bill, I am a strong proponent of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I simply say that it does not need to be mentioned in the Bill for the reasons that I have given. That is not in any way to indicate that there is not a strong commitment to it; it is just that it does not need to be there. I resist the amendment because I do not want to end up with lists. It is on that basis that I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: Having heard what the Minister has said, I am wiser and therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Disability]:
	[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Communities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 88 to 92B not moved.]

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 5, line 19, leave out "the involuntary isolation of" and insert "segregation and promote the inclusion of all"

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: Amendment No. 93 seeks to deal with the involuntary isolation of communities. Currently, the text implies that communities—composed of individuals—find themselves isolated without having had any say in the matter; that is, involuntarily isolated. The more pressing problem for those of us who "cover" communities at great length, including vis-à-vis the "respect agenda", is that groups of people—for whatever reason, including religion, culture, race, socio-economic issues—stay together and choose segregation as an option. They do so very deliberately. They may not appreciate that by remaining as a segregated group they are becoming increasingly isolated. Hence, the aim of Clause 11(1)(d) would be better served through promoting the inclusion of all members of different communities.
	The amendment came to my attention through the Commission for Racial Equality, which has done a lot of work. I as a member of the Muslim community, and particularly poignantly in the context of the events of the past week, have become much more aware of the problems that segregation can cause. We feel that the Bill's aim would be better served by rewording it in this manner. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her concerns. In fact, this is a term that parliamentary counsel was careful to draft. It was seeking to ensure that we did not address issues where communities very deliberately live in a more segregated way. The obvious example which sprang to my mind is orthodox Hasidic communities whose way of living is not involuntary. We must be very careful about the commission trying to force integration and include communities in an inappropriate way.
	We have approached it by saying that we recognise that communities choose to live in a particular way and live closely together. That is for them to choose, as is right and proper. We want to ensure that, where communities are involuntarily isolated, the commission does as much work as possible to support them and integrate them as appropriate.
	We also want it to be clear that we do not want the commission to feel that, because a community lives in a particular way, its role is to "meddle" where it ought not to. So, although the term is perhaps inelegant and in many ways I can see why the noble Baroness would be concerned about it, it is specifically designed to ensure that we address only involuntary isolation.
	I take the noble Baroness's point about segregated communities and the need to understand that that is something they need to consider for themselves. However, I do not think that we would address that by changing the wording of the Bill as the noble Baroness has suggested. I think that that point will become clearer as the commission operates. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, the Minister will know my views on Clause 11 and communities as they are lumped together in this manner. This was a probing amendment. Perhaps we can look at the wording and see whether we can incorporate involuntary isolation as well as a duty to promote the inclusion of segregated communities and come back to it on Report. In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 94 to 98 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Monitoring the law]:
	[Amendment No. 99A not moved.]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
	"(e) participate in reporting processes which exist to monitor compliance with international human rights treaties to which the United Kingdom is party."

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In speaking to Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 156. As regards Amendment No. 100, there needs to be a clear power for the commission to take part in the reporting processes which exist to monitor compliance with the international human rights treaties by which the United Kingdom is bound. Currently, the Bill does not make that clear. The Paris principles state that a national institution shall have the responsibility to contribute to the reports which states are required to submit to UN bodies and committees in accordance with their treaty obligations. That additional duty would sit in Clause 12 which sets out how the commission shall monitor the law.
	As regards Amendment No. 156, Clause 9 defines human rights in a very broad way, which is to be welcomed. It will be for the commission to decide which "other human rights" fall within Clause 9(2)(b). But in other parts of the Bill the definition of human rights is limited and confined to the Human Rights Act. Under Clause 12 the commission will be obliged to monitor the effectiveness of the equality and human rights enactments. Clause 35, the interpretation clause, makes it clear that "human rights enactment" means the Human Rights Act 1998 alone. The implication is that the commission will not, on the face of the Bill, be obliged to monitor the international human rights instruments under which the UK has obligations.
	Amendment No. 156 seeks to broaden the definition of human rights enactments in Clause 35 to encompass the definition in Clause 9. It is right, of course, that the Human Rights Act should form the main focus of the human rights work of the commission in much of its work, but the other human rights should not be excluded. I am sure it is not intended that they should in any way be excluded. I am thinking about the reports, for example, to the Committee for Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Commission for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and, above all, the Human Rights Committee, dealing with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And let us not forget the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All of that needs to be within the mandate of the commission. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I totally agree that the commission should have the power to comment independently on the performance of the United Kingdom against our international human rights obligations. That is an important part of the function of a national human rights institution. However, I think the amendment is unnecessary.
	Clause 19 of the Bill, as the noble Lord knows, allows the commission to co-operate on human rights matters with other bodies within the UK or elsewhere. Therefore, that allows the commission to co-operate with international human rights bodies. If you read that with the duties under Clause 9(1), to encourage good practice in human rights—promoting awareness, understanding and so on—this would allow it to co-operate with those bodies in monitoring the UK's performance against its international obligations.
	I also do not think that Amendment No. 156 is necessary. It has the unintended consequence—I know that it is unintended—of removing the Human Rights Act from the scope of clause 12, because it replaces the Act with other human rights enactments rather than adding to it. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended.
	Clause 12 is about monitoring the effectiveness of domestic law, which I would contend is not quite the same as monitoring compliance with that law, although the extent of compliance would influence any opinion on the effectiveness of the law itself. The point of the clause is for the commission to provide informed recommendations to Government about our domestic equality and human rights legal framework. All of the enactments to which Clause 12 currently applies are domestic legislation and are therefore within the power of Government and Parliament to amend. However, the other human rights referred to in Clause 9 are a potentially unlimited category of international treaties and not within the power of Government or Parliament to amend of their own volition. So we do not feel that it is appropriate to include them in this clause. If the commission wishes to offer opinions about or to lobby for amendments to these treaties, better to do so under clause 14(1)(a), with its power to,
	"publish or otherwise disseminate ideas or information".
	I shall go away and review the noble Lord's arguments on this point to ensure that there is no lacuna in the commission's powers. However, on the basis that I have indicated, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We agree on the end; the only question is whether, technically, the end is being achieved. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, and would be very surprised if she and her advisers were mistaken. If any question arises, I shall, if I may, raise it hereafter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 101 is in the names of my noble friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. All other amendments in this group are in the names of myself, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.
	This group of amendments is linked to the first group, which was debated in Committee last week, on 6 July. It concerns the independence of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The group with which we dealt last week was concerned with the structural and constitutional independence of the commission, involving the selection and removal of commissioners, the funding of the commission and the making of reports by the commission. All the amendments in the first group amended Schedule 1, the schedule that deals with the constitution of the commission.
	This group, however, concerns the working independence of the commission, through the freedom from directions by the Secretary of State. This group is not interlocking with the first group and we believe that the amendments in this group should be made even if those in Schedule 1 are not.
	At present, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a number of powers of direction in a number of respects. The Secretary of State can direct the commission to advise on the effect of an enactment, as provided by Clause 12(3). The Secretary of State can direct the commission to carry out inquiries into specified matters relating to any of the commission's duties under Clauses 8 to 11. That is found in Clause 17(1).
	The commission may also be directed by the Secretary of State, under Clause 22, to carry out an investigation or, under Clause 33, to assess the compliance of any person with the public sector duties under anti-discrimination legislation.
	We have no objection at all to the Secretary of State requesting the commission to do any of these things, but we believe that it is inappropriate to compel the commission to undertake work that it does not wish to do. Indeed, the commission should be free to arrange its own agenda and should not have to undertake work that it does not think appropriate. Nor should it undertake work that it believes is of a lower priority than the work it would have to set aside in order to comply with a direction. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its 16th report of Session 2003–04:
	"We have the gravest doubts whether it is compatible with the status of an independent national human rights institution to be subject to any form of statutory direction by Ministers regarding the initiation of its inquiries."
	Whatever the constitutional position, we believe that the commission must have full operational independence. The Bill achieves that after a series of simple amendments.
	Amendment No. 101 removes the power under Clause 12 for the Secretary of State to direct the commission to advise him or her on the effect of an enactment or of the likely effect of a proposed change in the law. Amendment No. 113 alters the power under Clause 17 for the Secretary of State to direct an inquiry into the power for the commission to accept or refuse a request by the Secretary of State.
	Amendments Nos. 115, 116 and 118 make a similar alteration to the power under Clause 22 to carry out investigations. Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 make a similar alteration to the power to assess the performance of duties of public authorities under anti-discrimination statutes. Amendments Nos. 149, 150 and 152 make consequential amendments to Schedule 2.
	We ask the Government to accept that the commission should have full operational independence, including the power to decide its own agenda. The commission will no doubt normally accept the request, but should not be obliged to do so. I recognise that the power to make directions is contained in existing legislation, but we think that the increased standing and constitutional importance of a single equality commission makes it plainly desirable that the commission should indeed have full operational independence. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: In this series of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and other noble Lords seek to either remove or reduce the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in the work of the commission. In general terms, I sympathise with their objectives. It will be recalled that, at Second Reading, I complained of lack of independence of the commission and I also spoke about it this afternoon. As I said, I have the utmost sympathy with the amendment and agree with it in many respects.
	My only problem with this particular group of amendments is that somewhere along the line they might knock out the involvement of the Government where it might be necessary for the Government to stay involved. For example, subsection (3) states:
	"The Commission shall comply with a direction of the Secretary of State to advise about the effect of the enactment",
	and so forth. From time to time, it might be important for the Government to have the benefit of the CEHR's expertise. After all, running the commission is quite an expensive undertaking. If all that information is gleaned and then the Government would like part of it to help them it would be a pity if that could not happen.
	I hope that between now and Report noble Lords who feel strongly about this matter on one hand and the Government on the other hand will come to an arrangement whereby they reach a compromise. They should try to remove those cases where government interference is really objectionable. However, some cases, such as the one that I just mentioned, could be lived with—perhaps ought to be lived with. That would be a great step forward because these are important amendments and principles are involved.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: These powers seem more interfering than in the old anti-discrimination legislation because the Government have quite sensibly separated out the concept of an investigation which is in the sex discrimination and race relations Acts into the concept of an inquiry and an investigation. In the old anti-discrimination legislation, the power to direct, which as my noble friend indicated, applies to "investigations". Because the Government have sensibly separated the two, more powers to direct are stated in the Bill. That is simply a matter of necessary presentation.
	During the debates on the Children Bill, as I am sure the Minister will remind us, we had many discussions about the power to direct. It would be very helpful if the Minister would give a full reply explaining the financial and other consequences. I am sure that she will.
	To add one further point, even if the Minister, for the reasons given among others by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, convinces us that these powers to direct are a necessary part of the structure in terms of funding and otherwise, I would attach even greater importance to the earlier debates on independence. If we could get satisfaction throughout the House on a general guarantee of independence of the commission from unnecessary government interference, this matter would have to be read within that context. I realise that that is something for another day.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for raising the issue of the context of this debate in terms of the independence which is an ongoing theme throughout this Bill. I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her question about advice; I agree with her. If the Government set up a commission, it is a repository of real expertise and information. We need to get that relationship right. That would be proper.
	This issue fits into the broader context. When the Government want to explore an issue in depth, the commission is the centre of excellence and expertise to which they must turn. It would be absurd not to be able to draw on that expertise. That is what we seek in this part of the Bill. To get that independence and an authoritative perspective are matters that could be of enormous public concern. Noble Lords will be able to think of issues that will be covered by the commission in the context of things that have already happened.
	What matters for this debate is to try to deal with concerns that these powers encroach unreasonably on the independence of the commission in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about our ongoing debate on independence. I have tried to make clear the importance that we attach to this body being independent and empowered. Obviously, the wide-ranging powers that we have provided in the Bill reflect that. I do not see any inconsistency between that and the powers that we have within the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated, there is nothing that is different that is not currently in place for one or more of the three commissions that will be included in the commission initially. Assessments are different because we do not have assessments in the previous legislation, but that is the only example.
	I am not sure that I have yet heard an example of when the Secretary of State's direction-making power has inhibited the activities of the current commissions or compromised their independence. If noble Lords, either in your Lordships' House this evening or in reading our debates, can come up with examples I would be grateful to receive them, but I have tried to look at whether there are examples where that might be the case. I am not sure that the direction-making powers inhibit the capacity or authority of the commission to initiate inquiries or investigations of its own accord. It is inconceivable that the requirements of government would dominate the commission's work.
	However, I am prepared to explore ways in which the direction-making power could remain without inhibiting the commission's ability to conduct the work that it considers necessary. One possible way—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, alluded to it—is to explore the role of the Secretary of State in providing additional resource when directing the commission to advise on the law to conduct an inquiry, investigation or assessment. What lies beneath many of the concerns that noble Lords might have is that somehow the commission's time is taken up doing the Government's bidding and it is not able to carry on with its work. Resources lie at the heart of that. We will look at that matter, as we did in the Children Bill, to see what more might be said about it.
	There is nothing between us in terms of the Government wanting to see this as an independent body able to do the job that it is required to do. It is important that the Government are able to turn to the commission either to deal with points that are of great importance to the public and our society or to get the advice that is necessarily within the commission because of its expertise. On the basis of what I have already undertaken to do, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. The point that she raised is one that we might well reconsider because the obligation to give advice is undoubtedly less intrusive than the obligation to conduct an inquiry, investigation or assessment. Certainly, the threat to the activity of the commission is such that an excessive use of the power of direction might lead to an overload and a diversion of the finances available to the commission from higher priorities. Therefore, if the Secretary of State makes one of these directions, he should also be liable for providing any additional funding. That suggestion could be a helpful way out.
	Meanwhile, this matter needs to be considered in the time available before we have to decide whether to bring any of these amendments back again. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Monitoring progress]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 6, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) the progress that has been made or is expected to be made in fulfilling its fundamental duty specified in section 3,
	(b) the results at which to aim for the purpose of fulfilling that fundamental duty ("outcomes"), and"

Baroness Miller of Hendon: This is a probing amendment to tease out of the Government a more detailed explanation of the meaning and purpose of this clause.
	In Clause 13(1)(a), the "fundamental duty" set out in Clause 3 is transmuted into a mere "aim". The commission is called upon to identify changes, factors and results "from time to time". That is in subsection (1). Eighteen lines later this vague timetable is firmed up to three yearly. It is certainly not for me to correct the Government's loose drafting, but why does Clause 13(1) not simply say "on the dates specified in subsection (4)"?
	In identifying what the subsection calls "outcomes" and "indicators", the commission is required to consult whoever it thinks fit, as well as anyone who volunteers to join this consultation. Having done that, the commission is required to publish the results of this vague exercise, and the Secretary of State is to lay the report before Parliament.
	At this point in the progress of the Bill, I am most certainly not going to reopen the debate about the fundamental duty of the commission, so no one need have any fear of that. Equally, I am not going to complain about the commission being obliged to report to the Secretary of State on the outcome of its activities or about the Secretary of State having to lay that report before Parliament.
	Even the excellent Explanatory Notes, however, are extremely vague about the purposes of this clause and how that purpose is to be achieved. The Explanatory Notes state that,
	"the CEHR will need to evaluate available evidence in order to identify desired outcomes for society and the indicators by reference to which progress can be measured".
	Frankly, I have to confess that I am not absolutely sure what that means. What is clear, however, is that, as proposed, it is not to be an ordinary annual, or even triennial, report—one that says, for example, "Here are our accounts, and during the year we dealt with x number of matters of this sort and y of that sort, and we participated in this activity and inaugurated that initiative". In other words, this will not be a report on tangible activities, results and achievements.
	This report will be on what the commission claims to have achieved in the course of its vague, philosophical objective of changing society. It will be based, according to subsection (2), on the opinions that the commission solicits from such persons that the commission decides to consult. Dare I venture to suggest that it may not be consulting anyone who, in the preceding three years, has been critical of the commission or any of its activities?
	In fairness—the Minister will know that I always like to be fair and see both sides of the argument—I must point out that subsection (2)(c) requires the commission to issue a general invitation to make representations to it. But that passive action of receiving such opinions as someone may take the trouble to express is not the same as the positive action of consultation.
	The result of this consultation will, I believe, be nothing more than an expensive, glossy brochure, containing a great deal of waffle and pious hopes, and very little in the form of tangible results that can be identified beyond argument.
	I have to admit that my amendment does little, if anything, to improve the situation. All it does is make the requirements less prescriptive and more focused on the actual work of the commission, its future objectives and the way to judge them, than the woolly wording of subsections (1) and (2).
	I look forward to hearing from the Minister a more detailed explanation of this somewhat nebulous clause so that we may be better able to judge it before the next stage of the Bill and so that Parliament may, in the future, judge how its provisions are to be complied with. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Baroness. The Minister said previously that parliamentary counsel does not like adding unnecessary words to statutory language. I am sure that this is not their fault. However, I find the way that Clause 13 is expressed extraordinary.
	If it was just that the commission shall monitor progress in achieving its statutory objectives—something of that kind or something a little longer than that—that would be fine. The Minister has said from time to time—I agree with her—that she hates unnecessary lists and undue prescription that will fetter the operation of the commission. She knows that I also dislike the word "stakeholders", but I also find the words "outcomes" and "indicators" and the phrase "relevant identified indicator" to be unsightly jargon words which read like machine language. I do not think that a Bill about human rights ought to be expressed in those terms.
	Therefore, it seems to me that the provision needs to be redrafted before Report stage into something which is fit for human use. I could have a go, if necessary, but I would rather the Government did it. Therefore, I support the spirit of the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am delighted that the noble Lords who have spoken enjoyed this clause so much. Elements of the clause are about trying to get a good evidence base and monitor progress. It was described to me by officials as "taking the temperature of the UK from time to time". It is about trying to get the right kind of consultation—consultation which is more than the usual suspects, if I can describe it like that.
	I absolutely understand what noble Lords have said. I will take the clause away and look again at the drafting again, particularly its references to creating a society. I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, chose not to raise the issues of Clause 3 again.
	On the basis that I will take it away and look at it, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, because his endorsement of what I said may have contributed to the speed with which the Minister said she would take the clause away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 102A not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Information, advice, &c.]:

Lord de Mauley: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 7, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).

Lord de Mauley: In moving Amendment No. 103, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106. These amendments seek to amend—indeed, to expand on—the responsibility of the commission for giving information and advice to those affected by its activities.
	They are introduced at the behest of the Federation of Small Businesses, which is concerned that its members—who are repeatedly told that they are the engine of British commerce—fear that they will find themselves unwittingly falling foul of the legislation because they lack the technical expertise to interpret the Bill without help.
	Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 are purely consequential, leaving out paragraph (d) and then renumbering the references to subsequent paragraphs. The reason for leaving out subsection (2) is that it is reinstated after the new subsection (2), which is the substantive amendment.
	We entirely agree with the Government that the commission should disseminate information, guidance and advice about the operation of the legislation. The Government might have considered altering the word "may" to "shall", but perhaps that would impose too onerous a duty on the commission and leave it open to litigation if it did not vigorously pursue each of the several points.
	As drafted, however, the Bill lacks specificity. The amendment requires the commission to provide advice or guidance without charge, and to do so in a timely manner, because someone—a member of the public or an employer—who needs advice wants it right away, or as nearly right away as is reasonably possible.
	The phrase "in a timely manner" does not impose any arbitrary or prescriptive time limit on the commission. It proposes one of several methods of providing that service, all of which are in line with modern commercial practices.
	The commission is going to preside over a complex act, imposing onerous duties on both employers and members of the public. It also consolidates and ensures the enforcement of the rights of individuals and indeed what the Bill as drafted called "communities". The average person will not have the skill and expertise to find out his rights and duties on his own without great difficulty. The amendment simply takes up the Government's offer in the Bill to enable the commission voluntarily to give guidance and to specify in more detail how this should be done.
	The amendment does not ask the commission to do anything that it probably would not do anyway, and is most certainly neither unduly prescriptive nor onerous. The amendment expands on the way in which the commission provides the facilities that the Bill proposes should be made available. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I also know not only from our discussions on Second Reading but from other discussions that he and other noble Lords on all sides of the Committee are champions of small businesses. These businesses employ the majority of the country's workforce and are often ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes complex obligations that legislation can bring.
	The establishment of the commission, bringing together expert advice and guidance on a range of issues, therefore represents a major advance in helping small business to comply with the law. I know that the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI have both generally welcomed the commission. They have in a sense been the strongest champions for moving in this direction.
	I am certain that in exercising its power under Clause 14 to give advice or guidance, the commission will provide a free helpline and website and conduct correspondence with its service users. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, knows, one need only look at the examples of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission to see that. The DRC in particular offers an excellent and highly-praised helpline, without charge to individuals and businesses alike. As I understand it, in 2003–04 the line took almost 120,000 calls of which 40,000 were from employers and service providers. They do so without a statutory duty to provide one. It is an example that we expect to be followed.
	Looking at the particular amendment, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. Yet I am pretty certain that, in a decade, communications and technology will change and probably be unrecognisable from what they are now. From my experience with other legislation, I know that it is important that we do not impose a duty that roots our advice and guidance in today's communication media. That needs to be thought about in the context of what may be; for example, had we done this 30 years ago, we may well have required typewritten correspondence from the commissions. That would be inappropriate in terms of the technology of today.
	A further consequence of the amendment is to preclude the commission from working with others to provide advice. The Disability Rights Commission helpline is thought of so highly partly because it uses specialist third-party providers to deliver the service. We want to ensure that the commission is able to do that again, if that were the right way forward.
	I hope that the noble Lord will accept that if the commission is to meet its obligation, it is absolutely imperative that it finds effective ways of communicating with businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why we also want to see business expertise reflected in the knowledge and experience of the appointed commissioners.
	As the noble Lord probably realises, although I have enormous sympathy for the amendments, I shall resist them because I want the commission to move forward. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the commission is able to support businesses in the way I have indicated. I will indeed take forward some of the excellent current examples so that they are a source of advice and support for small businesses and not a burden.

Lord de Mauley: I thank the Minister for her response and acknowledge the convenience for business of bringing together the commissions. I am also reassured by her confidence that the services will be provided, even if she does not particularly like my wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 103A to 106 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Codes of practice]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 8, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Goodhart: I can be brief on this group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 107 and 216 raise the same point that was debated a few minutes ago in the group starting with Amendment No. 101; that is, that the commission should be free to establish its own work programme and should not be required to produce a code of conduct if it does not think it appropriate to do so in the circumstances. I shall not repeat my previous arguments about operational independence.
	I have looked again at Amendments Nos. 108 to 111 and would not wish to press them in any event. It seems to me that once a code of conduct is produced it becomes a form of legislation, and it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have to approve it and lay it before Parliament. So the only amendments here with which we remain concerned are Nos. 107 and 216. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly for not moving the amendments with which I would find more difficulty. I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments that the noble Lord has specifically moved—that is, regarding the Secretary of State's power to direct the commission to prepare the code; removing the requirement for the EOC or the commission to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State to prepare a code on the gender duty; and removing the Secretary of State's role to make an order bringing the code into effect. I am quite prepared to take those away and look at them. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 108 to 111 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Codes of practice: supplemental]:
	[Amendments Nos. 111A to 112 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Inquiries]:
	[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 9, line 18, at end insert ", and
	"(c) may enter into arrangements with the Office of Fair Trading for the purpose of undertaking a market investigation, where the Commission has reason to believe that discrimination is occurring within a market"

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: This is a probing amendment to try to ensure that the CEHR—like the existing equality commission—will have powers to conduct investigations into unlawful acts of discrimination or harassment within a given market.
	To carry out an investigation into a named person, the CEHR must have reasonable suspicion that an unlawful act of discrimination or harassment has taken place. I would argue—and I am grateful to the CAB for its help here—that a rather less intrusive process would be to undertake a market investigation which would not be investigating unlawful acts per se but, rather, equality of access to goods and services within the general framework of equality enactments.
	The CEHR would be able to investigate a broad range of practices and suppliers that constitute a market for the purpose of competition and consumer legislation. The commission should therefore be empowered to undertake investigations of unfair discrimination in markets through joint investigations with the Office of Fair Trading. That could, for example, take place through a "super-complaint" process under the Enterprise Act, a market investigation or a reference to the Competition Commission.
	The Enterprise Bill gives the OFT a formal duty to accept and review super-complaints from designated consumer bodies. It is clear from the legislation that this duty may be extended to certain specified sectoral regulators. Therefore, I would argue, there is an opportunity for the new commission to become involved in that process. A "super-complaint", as defined in Section 11(1) of the Act, is a complaint submitted by a designated consumer body that,
	"any feature, or combination of features, of a market in the UK for goods or services is or appears to be significantly harming the interests of consumers".
	In broad terms, I gather, a "feature" may be any conduct by firms or consumers, or the structure of the market, or any aspect of that structure. A super-complaint can therefore concern any commercial activity. It does not concern the activities of a particular company in that market, but rather features of the market itself.
	The contention of the amendment is that unfair discrimination can potentially constitute a feature of the market. The obvious case is disability, where service providers are systematically failing to make reasonable adjustments, many of which are entirely cost-free, so that those products are effectively inaccessible to disabled consumers regardless of their purchasing power. Here, clearly, discrimination would occur in the whole market. A market investigation would be able to identify the barriers to making reasonable adjustments and would be able to tackle the issues in a constructive way, rather than relying on individual or class legal actions to achieve change.
	The amendment would enable market investigations to become a mechanism for tackling such discrimination. The other type of market investigations are those referred by the OFT to the Competition Commission. Is there any reason why the CEHR should not also be involved in the process when issues of discrimination come into play? I look for an assurance from the Minister on how the CEHR will work with the OFT and other consumer bodies, such as citizens advice bureaux. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I recognise that the CAB has been helpful to her in putting the issue forward.
	I am resisting the amendment because we do not need a statutory provision to make an arrangement with the Office of Fair Trading in respect of a market investigation where discrimination may be occurring. If the commission has evidence that discrimination is taking place, contrary to the equality enactments, it may conduct an investigation. Where there are unequal outcomes but no evidence that unlawful discrimination is being perpetrated, the commission itself may conduct an inquiry.
	As I have indicated, we anticipate that the commission will be an authoritative body. If it considers it likely that discrimination is taking place, it can bring that to the attention of the OFT or other market investigation body without the need for a provision. The amendment would not of itself imply that the OFT is required to take an action as the result of an arrangement. It is open to both bodies to co-operate in respect of discrimination issues in the market.
	The sentiment behind the amendment may be that the commission should work with other organisations to share knowledge about where discrimination is occurring, as the noble Baroness has indicated. It is an excellent idea that the commission forms partnerships with other bodies, such as consumer organisations, who will be aware of discrimination, particularly in goods, facilities and services. Such knowledge will be essential if the commission is able to target its resources effectively and work in those markets with organisations that are a barrier to fairness, even unwittingly.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: At the moment, the Equal Opportunities Commission cannot share information with the Commission for Racial Equality because of the restrictions on the disclosure of information relating to investigations. Will the Minister and her advisers consider the problem of the transfer of information between the new commission and the Office of Fair Trading? The restrictions on disclosure have to marry with the notion of partnership or co-operative relationship.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord is right to raise that issue, which, I think, we will talk about later in the Bill. I take the point, and we will look at it.
	On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Ferrers: The Minister said it was right for the commission to discuss with other bodies a way to put things right. That is one thing, but, as I understand it, the noble Baroness wants people to be able to make a super-complaint and for the commission to have "super-powers" to deal with that complaint. That seems to go pretty far, and again brings Big Brother into focus. Here is the commission, sitting down, looking at a market, adjusting it all and telling people what to do.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Earl returns to a theme that, I know, he feels strongly about. In resisting the amendment, we recognise that it is right and proper, as the noble Earl said, for the commission to discuss with other bodies, such as the citizens advice bureaux and others, relevant issues that consumer organisations are often knowledgeable about. That is different from creating something in statute. I do not want to do that, and I agree with the noble Earl.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I am sure that it will be reassuring to those who are concerned about the issue. The aim was to create something that would be a little less intrusive in certain circumstances than a full formal investigation of the type that we had to proceed with from time to time at the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope that all those concerned will be satisfied with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Investigations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 11, line 7, leave out "suspects" and insert "has reasonable grounds to suspect"

Baroness Miller of Hendon: In moving Amendment No. 117, I shall speak also to the identical amendments, Amendment No. 119. Under Clause 22(3) and 22(4), the commission is empowered, or may be required by the Secretary of State, to open a potentially wide-ranging investigation in which the person being investigated has an obligation to provide the fullest possible co-operation under the threat of condign penalties.
	Schedule 2, which gives directions about the conduct of such an investigation, does not, as far as I can see, grant the person the right to refuse to co-operate on the basis of the right against self-incrimination. However, for the purposes of this debate, I am prepared to assume that the Government acknowledge that that right overrides this Bill, either under the common law or under the Human Rights Act 1998.
	It concerns me that a gigantic fishing expedition may be launched by the commission, either on its own initiative or at the behest of the Secretary of State, on the basis of the purely subjective test that one or other of them merely suspects that someone has committed an unlawful act. Anyone can claim that he suspects something without having reasonable grounds for doing so or even, in this case, without being obliged to specify why he suspects whatever it is.
	The amendment would impose on the commission or the Secretary of State the need to have reasonable grounds for their suspicion before an action can be taken. There is ample precedent for the requirement. I draw the Committee's attention to Section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under which police officers may arrest a person as the preliminary to an investigation, or as part of it, only if they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that an offence has been committed. I see no grounds why the commission—even though it cannot arrest anyone—or the Secretary of State should have a lesser obligation about the standard of suspicion before acting. The amendment does not impose on the commission or on the Secretary of State any obligation or standard of conduct that they could possibly be unwilling to accept. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for having to say something about law. The amendment is not necessary. Almost a quarter of a century ago, this problem arose in the context of action by the Commission for Racial Equality. It wanted to investigate Hillingdon London Borough Council in the belief that the council might be discriminating on racial grounds in providing housing for the homeless at Heathrow Airport. There was a judicial review, and it went all the way to the House of Lords. That was under identical provisions, which were written in by Quintin Hogg MP—as he then was—when the legislation was originally passed as a safeguard of individual freedom. The provisions that are there have impeccable and necessary origins of that kind. When the case came to the House of Lords, Lord Diplock, for a unanimous House of Lords, in 1982 appeal cases, for those who want to look it up, said:
	"This state of mind, which corresponds with the civil burden of proof, is one which must be reached by the commission in the course of the full investigation in order to justify the service of a non-discriminatory notice . . . To entitle the commission to embark upon the full investigation",
	that is, to get over the threshold:
	"it is enough that there should be material before the commission sufficient to raise in the minds of reasonable men,"—
	in those days women were forgotten by some Law Lords—
	"possessed of the experience of covert racial discrimination that has been acquired by the commission, a suspicion that there may have been acts by the person named of racial discrimination of the kind which it is proposed to investigate".
	Putting that in simple language, they were saying that when you carry out a full investigation you have to be able to establish what you are saying on the civil burden and standard of proof on the balance of probability, but before you embark on the investigation the threshold should not be so high as to stultify the commission in being able to embark on the investigation. What is necessary is a reasonable belief, but nothing more than reasonable belief.
	That has stood for a quarter of a century as the standard. I am not aware that it has ever been abused, and it seems to me that it meets very much the spirit of what has been said by the noble Baroness.

Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is deeply knowledgeable about these matters, and I am sure that what he says is true, but not everyone who is confronted with the law, as it then will be, will know what Lord Diplock's judgment 20 years ago was. It was fairly complicated. I would have thought that what my noble friend is suggesting is perfectly reasonable. You can take certain action if you have reasonable grounds for believing something, as opposed to just saying, "I suspect that chap is doing something wrong, therefore I will investigate it". I hope that the noble Baroness will give some consideration to the amendment proposed by my noble friend.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for spelling out what the law has already said about the issue, which is important. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Earl want me to say more about how we think this works in practice and to address the issue of the amendment specifically.
	We intend that the commission will carry out an investigation only where it has reason to believe that the person concerned may have committed an unlawful act of discrimination or harassment. The concept of "reasonable grounds to suspect" is already covered in the word "suspect". I shall say a bit more about that in a moment.
	The commission cannot form a suspicion without the grounds to do so. Combined with its public law duty to act reasonably, the word "suspect" suffices to imply a reasonable suspicion based on specific grounds. The noble Baroness will perhaps not be surprised that it does not equate to a belief as high as a civil burden of proof, but there must be material before the commission sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that the named person may have committed acts of the kind that it is proposed to investigate. The commission must be able to justify its decision to investigate as reasonable and fair, and it would be required to produce the evidence it based the decision on if challenged.
	Obviously we do not want to specify precisely what that evidence would be, but we would expect it to include such things as material that flows from an inquiry; material that has been put before a court or a tribunal that may have led to a decision, or the case may have settled and the proceedings withdrawn; information that is brought to the attention of the commission through help line or advice services. A suspicion based on a single unsubstantiated complaint, for example, would be unlikely to be defensible, but a number of complainants over a long period of time, combined for example with a number of settled cases of which the commission is aware, is likely to be sufficient.
	All that begs the question of whether the belief threshold to exercise this power is appropriate. In my view, to impose any higher level of belief would place the commission in a position where it would in effect be required to know in advance of an investigation what it might find. That is neither feasible not desirable.
	I hope that I have set out the kind of evidence or material that we would expect the commission to have. We are very keen to make sure that we have the right level of protection to ensure that innocent companies, for example, are not targeted. We do not want this to be an arbitrary use of a power that could be damaging, for example, to a company's reputation. Combined with what is set out in Schedule 2, we have the right package of adequate safeguards for someone subject to an investigation conducted by the commission. I hope that on reading what I have said about the kind of evidence expected, the concerns of the noble Baroness will be allayed.
	I asked for advice from parliamentary counsel about the wording of the amendment. That advice tells me that the difficulty with phrasing it in the way that the noble Baroness wishes—although the same effect is there and parliamentary counsel is certain it is there—is that it would cast doubt on other legislation where that phrase is used. I need therefore to avoid it on the basis that I do not wish to cast doubt about the word "suspects". For that reason, I have no alternative but to avoid the wording in this case. I hope, on the basis that it is contained in the word "suspects", and on the basis of what I have said about the kind of material that the commission would be expected to provide, and our expectation that improper cases would not be brought forward, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Ferrers: Just before that happens, the noble Baroness said that she would not want there to be a higher level to which people have to go to bring a complaint. According to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the level is the same, as he said that this amendment is not necessary because the amendment already covers my noble friend's wording.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is my fault. The Law Lords made it clear, as the Minister has now explained, that the threshold requirement to embark on an investigation is lower than the requirement when one concludes that there has been unlawful conduct. The threshold is that one needs a belief that is reasonable. At the later stage, one needs a belief that has been demonstrated on the basis of the evidence to be correct on the balance of probabilities. That makes sense, because you cannot expect the commission before it embarks on an investigation into whether something wrong has occurred to be able to prove on the balance of probabilities that it has occurred; just as the police cannot be expected to do so when carrying out a criminal investigation. I hope that I have clarified what I was attempting to say.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for explaining the legal provision that it is not necessary and for covering Lord Diplock. When the noble Lord finished, he tried to put it simply. As a lay person, I say to the noble Lord that even when he was making it simple a lot of us did not understand him. When I thank my noble friend for his contribution, I accept that we see the word "suspect" but do not know that contained with it are these other words and so forth. We want to make it fair, so that nobody is taken to some sort of investigation because somebody else merely suspected them. We did not know that "suspect" means there must already be the reasonable grounds that I wanted to put into the amendment.
	I do not doubt what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, or by the Minister, and certainly not the advice of her parliamentary advisers on this. I am quite certain that my legal advisers will accept that also—at least, I hope they will. On that basis, at this stage, I certainly beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Unlawful act notice]:

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 11, line 40, at beginning insert "require or"

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: As my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Gould of Potternewton are unable to be in the Chamber at this time, I have pleasure in moving the amendment on their behalf. This group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 120 to 122 to Clause 23, and Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 to Clause 24, would have the effect of strengthening the commission's role in the provision of unlawful act notices and action plans.
	The amendments have been brought forward in response to concerns expressed by the Equality and Diversity Forum, which represents over 25 different organisations actively engaged with equality and human rights. Those include the three existing commissions and representatives of the additional equality strands which would be covered by the new commission.
	At present, the Bill provides for the commission to issue a notice requiring an organisation to prepare an action plan and to make recommendations on what should be in that plan. The commission can then either approve the draft plan or make the organisation in question revise it, or if none is forthcoming, seek a court order requiring submission of a draft plan for its approval. However, in circumstances where an organisation may be less than willing to comply, this procedure could allow the discriminator to stall—submitting draft plans when required to do so which are inadequate, and thereby drawing out the process and avoiding taking action. That would of course be detrimental to the spirit behind the Bill.
	Under the existing legislation, the existing commissions have the power in an anti-discrimination notice to require the discriminator to cease the discrimination in question. This power does not appear to be available to the commission. It could therefore be argued that there is a regression issue at stake.
	Additionally, there may be circumstances where it would be impracticable for an organisation to prepare the plan itself; for example, if it was a small business or lacked the required knowledge and experience. Therefore, these amendments give the commission the power to draw up action plans by itself, from the beginning if necessary, in consultation with the organisation involved. This may often be the preferred option for many, especially businesses and service providers.
	The amendments allow the commission to take over the process in those extreme cases where it is necessary to prevent foot-dragging on the part of an organisation. They also permit the commission to require the action plan to contain specific measures, and thereby it can require an organisation to undertake to cease particular actions. I hope that my noble friend will consider these amendments, which are aimed at strengthening the new commission. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I understand the point of these amendments, as moved by my noble friend Lady Gibson. I sympathise with the intention behind them, not least because the commission will be the expert on discrimination and harassment, and part of its role will be to give advice to employers and businesses on the work that it does. It would be within the expertise of the commission to draft the action plan. However, I think that it would probably be less effective. I think that it is important for the discriminator to "own" the solution to the problem. The discriminator has to consider the circumstances in which the discrimination has taken place and come up with the ways of stopping it. It has to be a home-grown solution. After all, they are best placed to understand how their organisation works and the practices and policies within it. They are usually best placed to prepare the action plan to be implemented to stop it occurring again.
	I accept, however, that there may be circumstances, as my noble friend indicated, where that is onerous and difficult. I can say categorically that I would expect and have every confidence that the commission will provide assistance and guidance. The provisions in place for the commission to approve the draft and to require a redraft within a specified timescale, and to make recommendations about the redraft, reflect the proper role for the commission in supervising and approving the plan, but not actually preparing it. Nevertheless, if the commission is dissatisfied with the plan or one is not submitted, it can apply to the court to require an action plan to be submitted or to be revised in accordance with any directions about its content. Thus, through the courts, there are means by which someone could be required to prepare an action plan that is adequate and meets the requirements of the commission.
	Ultimately, it has to be for the "discriminator"—to use the terminology that I have here—to own the solution to the problem and find ways of doing it. However, on the basis that the commission needs to provide advice, support and guidance to them, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. The noble Baronesses who tabled the amendment but are not in the Chamber at the moment will look at her reply with great interest. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Action plans]:
	[Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 not moved.]
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Applications to court]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Clause 26 gives the commission power to apply to the court to tackle persistent discrimination and to obtain a court order, whether in the county court or sheriff court in Scotland, to bring the unlawful conduct to an end. In one respect, the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts have not been copied into the legislation. For example, there is provision in Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act allowing the commission to apply first to an employment tribunal for a finding of unlawful conduct with a view to seeking relief of the kind that is in Clause 26. That is the reason why I am raising the point on this clause.
	The first issue—raised forcefully by the Equal Opportunities Commission, as I think the Minister knows—is whether something like Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act should be included so that the expert employment tribunal, often regarded as more friendly and expert in dealing with discrimination cases than a county court or sheriff court—no doubt with great respect to them—can still be an option open to the commission in employment-related cases.
	The second issue is whether it is necessary to continue the rather cumbersome language of the Sex Discrimination Act, which as the Committee will see prevents the commission seeking a court order for persistent discrimination, except where there has already been a non-discrimination notice, under the old parlance—where there has been a full investigation or a court or tribunal finding of an unlawful act. I shall give an example to explain what I am talking about.
	Suppose that it is perfectly plain that employer E is persistently discriminating on grounds of gender or race. Suppose that the employer is stupid and unwilling to comply with the law, and that the commission has done everything it could to bring an end to the unlawful discrimination. Suppose that there has not previously been the whole business of a formal investigation, but that it is obvious from the practice itself that this unlawful conduct is going on. Suppose that there has not been a finding about the practice before because it has not arisen before, but that it is clear that it is going on and will continue unless brought to an end by court order.
	The great advantage of a power to tackle persistent discrimination with a threat of going to the county court is that it will induce and encourage the unreasonable employer, trade union or whoever happens to be on the receiving end to come to some settlement in a voluntary way. The idea of getting a court order is so unpalatable that normally the very threat of it is sufficient.
	I appreciate that the matter needs to be thought about and that we need to come back to it on Report, but the two issues in Clause 26 are, first, the option of being able to go to an employment tribunal, and secondly, whether we can remove the barnacles from the existing system. By barnacles, I mean the requirement first to have a formal investigation and non-discrimination notice or a finding when you are dealing with blatant and persistent discrimination that can be ended only by a court order. Is it not possible to modernise that in a way that will make the system work rather better? That is why I oppose the Question that Clause 26 stand part.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Again, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lockwood to support the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I have also been briefed on the matter by the Equal Opportunities Commission; he explained its position extremely well. The EOC argues not for Section 73 to be included in the Bill, but for an equivalent provision to be included. He has adequately outlined its worries on the issue, so I shall not repeat them.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall be reasonably brief because there is an interesting and ongoing debate about how best to deal with persistent discrimination and issues around Section 73, which I have described in my notes to myself as a little tricky to get right. There is no doubt that the streamlined process is interesting; we need to consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has put forward. As I understand it—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure—the Equal Opportunities Commission likes the proposal but it does not take forward the Section 73 powers in the way in which it sees them.
	We need further conversations on the issue with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the noble Lord, my noble friend if she were willing to participate, and any other noble Lords who wish to do so. However, I suspect that it may be a slightly internal discussion. I shall keep the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, fully informed of what we conclude. Rather than taking the time of the Committee to go through all the different issues, the best thing is for us to have that dialogue and see whether we can find a way through that meets all our objectives, which are fundamentally the same. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I shall indeed. The EOC would also like the unnecessary barnacles taken off.

Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Legal assistance]:
	[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 129:
	Page 17, line 2, leave out from "Commission" to "if" in line 3 and insert "shall consider any application for assistance from an individual and may provide assistance"

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Amendments Nos. 129 and 131 were to be taken with Amendment No. 128. They are small but important amendments. The commission should be under a duty to consider all applications for assistance. The existing commissions all have that duty. If it were omitted from the new commission, that would be a breach of the "no regression" principle enshrined in the relevant EU directives.
	The amendment does not seek a requirement to provide representation in all cases of merit, but a discretionary power that can be exercised in a limited number of strategically important cases. It creates access to justice; such access was a fundamental principle that underpinned the introduction of the SDA, the RRA and the DDA. Its removal from the commission would remove the right of some victims of discrimination to apply for assistance. That would be a backward step that I hope that the Government will not take.
	I shall turn to Amendment No. 131. The casework function at the existing commissions has a crucially important role, yet there is no reference to casework or caseworkers in the Bill. Only a few cases handled by the commissions receive fully funded representation, but the caseworkers prove invaluable to the commissions. They provide pre-litigation advice work. Their expertise lies in their first-hand knowledge of problems, trends, barriers, motivations, emerging issues and possible solutions. They identify test cases that have the potential to benefit whole groups and communities, and they raise awareness with employers and organisations.
	Caseworkers' experience and knowledge is used to develop good practice guidance, codes of practice, education and the promotion of equality of opportunity. Casework would add to the work of the commission significantly, and I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I support my noble friend on the amendments. I speak also as a former member of the EOC. My recollection is that we certainly had the powers sought in the amendment. It did not mean to say that we always agreed to provide assistance, but we certainly considered a large number of individual applications for assistance. In equality legislation, it is important that it be clear that a means of enforcement exists, particularly for women. That was available so far as the EOC was concerned.
	The amendment does not commit the new commission to take up every case referred to it or that comes to its attention, but it provides discretion, which is important. I support what my noble friend said.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: As another ex-member of the EOC—it is quite a club that we are becoming—I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, on the point. It should certainly be left to the commission to decide. As we have already heard, that does not commit the commission to take up every case, but it is for it to consider which cases will help it in the way in which it conducts its activities. I warmly support the amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I support the amendment. If the commission is to act strategically, it is important that it have the ability in a suitable test case raising issues of principle to give assistance.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I welcome this opportunity to put on the record why we are not placing the commission under an express duty to consider all applications for support that it receives and why we think it is unnecessary to specify "case work" in the Bill.
	I recognise that there is an obligation placed on the CRE by the Race Relations Act and on the Equal Opportunities Commission by the Sex Discrimination Act to consider every application against set criteria and decide whether to grant it within a fixed time period of two months. This obligation is not conferred on the Disability Rights Commission.
	It is not our intention that the new commission will support every meritorious case. It will simply not have the resources to do so, as the current commissions do not. There are about 20,000 discrimination cases before the courts and tribunals each year; fewer than 400 are supported by the existing commissions combined.
	The intention is that the commission will use its power to assist an individual in bringing proceedings in an effective and strategic way, as we would expect it to use all its powers. So we have taken away the statutory criteria for supporting cases that feature almost identically in each of the commissions. The purpose behind that is to allow the commission to use its power in the way it considers most effective. That goes back to my point about freedom of action for the commission, as I indicated on the first day of Committee. That is very important. We do not see any need to put an express obligation on the commission to consider applications. In practice, it has to consider all the applications if it is to identify which, if any, it wishes to support. As a public body, it has an implicit obligation to not act unreasonably and could be challenged if it ignored applications it received.
	We do not think it sensible to carry forward a duty that may potentially drain a significant—and disproportionate—share of resources from the commission's other work on the basis that I said of how we would expect the commission to operate.
	Amendment No. 131 would add case work to the list of legal assistance that the commission can provide. Case work is a subset of the legal advice listed; it is encompassed within Clause 14, which allows the commission to provide general advice and guidance on matters which are not the subject of legal proceedings. Specifying case work would cast doubt on whether the references to advice and guidance and legal advice and representation cover case work, and imply that it is something different, which it is not. So, on the basis that it is already covered, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press that amendment, and on the basis of what I have said about the way that the commission would operate, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 129.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend for those explanations which have convinced me that I will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 129. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Page 17, line 5, leave out from "enactments" to end of line 7.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: In moving Amendment No. 130 to Clause 30 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 146 to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2. They both provide for the commission, at its discretion, to provide assistance to a defendant or to a person who is what could loosely be called "the respondent" to proceedings or inquiries under this Act.
	I begin with Amendment No. 130. As drafted, subsection (1) provides:
	"The Commission may assist an individual who is or may become party to legal proceedings".
	However, this discretionary power is subject to two conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b). Condition (a) is that,
	"the proceedings relate or may relate (wholly or partly) to a provision of the equality enactments",
	which is fair enough. Condition (b) is that the individual who is assisted,
	"alleges that he has been the victim of behaviour contrary to a provision of the equality enactments".
	It is this second condition that the amendment seeks to remove. In other words, the amendment would give the commission discretionary power to assist either party—or indeed both parties—to an issue simultaneously.
	I find it absolutely paradoxical that an Act designed, according to Clause 3, to eliminate "prejudice or discrimination" includes a provision which is prejudiced against the defendant, which in effect assumes—prejudges, if you like—his culpability, and which automatically discriminates against the alleged victimiser in favour of the alleged victim.
	The philosophy of this provision indicates an assumption that the alleged victimiser is always in a stronger position to defend proceedings than the complaining party is to launch them. That is not a tenable point of view. A complainant may have the assistance in whole or in part of a powerful trade union or perhaps some pressure group. The complainant may have launched multiple claims against the same respondent—an event which is not unknown in litigation. The respondent may be the owner of a small business.
	The issue in a particular case may be of such major importance that it is in the public interest that it should be litigated to the fullest possible extent in order to get a definitive ruling. Why should the owner of, say, a small corner shop be saddled with the cost of defending himself when the complainant has the entire massive resources of the commission to support him or her?
	Amendment No. 146 relates to any inquiry, investigation or assessment instituted under Schedule 2. Such proceedings can, under the terms of the schedule, be extremely wide ranging, and get even wider while the process is in hand.
	The respondent to such an inquiry or investigation is obliged to provide information, to produce documents and give evidence under the pain of being deemed to have committed a criminal offence and liable to a substantial fine. The respondent to such an inquiry is, quite rightly, entitled to the assistance of the court if he believes that the commission is making unreasonable demands. But the cost of obtaining that protection can be enormous. It is only right and proper that the respondent to what may be an extensive and wide-ranging inquiry, possibly entailing the need of legal and other professional assistance merely to satisfy the demands of the commission, should not be inhibited or disadvantaged by having only limited resources.
	I referred earlier to the provision of Clause 3 against prejudice and discrimination. Clause 3 also calls for respect and protection of each individual's human rights. The prohibition in Clause 30 against the commission assisting the respondent, and the failure of Schedule 2 to give the commission a discretionary power—I stress that; we are talking about a discretionary power—to assist a respondent to one of its possibly extensive inquiries or investigations, is a breach of his or her human rights.
	I cite in support of that contention the case of Steel and Morris v The UK. This was a case before the European Court of Human Rights, often called the McLibel case. It was held that legal aid should be given in civil cases where the resources of the parties were significantly different and where issues involving convention rights are involved.
	Cases and inquiries under the equality legislation are certainly involved with human rights, and there is certainly a vast discrepancy between the resources available to the commission and a very large number of persons against whom action is taken either by the commission itself or by someone supported by the commission under Clause 30(1)(b).
	There is no provision in the Bill, or in the existing legal aid legislation, for organisations or individuals to be given assistance if they are under investigation or inquiry, or are being sued with the backing of the massive resources of the commission. Nor does there appear to be any provision for any person or organisation to recover their costs and expenses in defending themselves during an investigation or from fighting a claim backed by the commission.
	These two amendments do not impose any obligation on the commission to grant any assistance. They simply empower it to do so at its own discretion. They would also remove the excuse for the commission to say that it would like to help but unfortunately does not have the power to do so.
	The amendments are simply designed to ensure a degree of equality and justice for all parties to proceedings under the legislation. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers: Will the Minister be good enough to give some consideration and thought to my noble friend's amendment? It seems to me that the ability of the commission to help and support people in their legal actions is a considerable power. Although it is right that people who have a serious grievance should be supported if they are without funds, such action can also have the effect of curtailing justice.
	I hope I shall not trouble the Committee if I repeat the case that we heard earlier of the hotel that regularly puts Bibles in its rooms, which is a perfectly justified and reasonable thing to do. Along comes somebody—a Satanist, say—who objects to that as proselytising and goes to the commission to sue the hotel under the equality legislation. Responding to that and defending its actions may entail huge expenditure for the hotel. The simple thing for it to do is to remove the Bibles and cut the fuss. That gives the commission or the individual bringing the case the most appalling power to remove justice. That hotel has the right to put Bibles in its rooms. If that right is refused for fear of a large expense in defending the case, it would be a miscarriage of justice.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would allow the person making the complaint to be supported as well as the person against whom the complaint is being made. That seems to me to be reasonable, and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to consider it.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The provisions in Clause 30 go back 30 years to the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. They are in substance exactly the same. I am not aware of any hard cases during those 30 years that have arisen in practice in which a respondent or defendant has been unable to defend himself through lack of means. That is an exaggeration: I can remember one case about 20 years ago where a small employer was in that situation. I would be interested to know whether any other evidence from large or small businesses or trade unions has ever been produced.
	The reason why the amendment could not work is that the commission would face an inevitable conflict of interest if it is to promote compliance with the equality legislation and give assistance to alleged victims on the one hand, and on the other hand is expected to fund and assist the party on the other side. As noble Lords will know, in its investigative powers the commission takes the side of securing compliance with the law. It cannot take both sides because there would be a conflict of interest.
	"McLibel" was a rare case that went to Strasbourg. No legal aid was available in such defamation cases. McDonalds employed leading and, no doubt, expensive counsel for more than two years, and two impecunious, radical, courageous, anti-McDonalds individuals had to defend themselves in person in the High Court. That led the European Court of Human Rights to decide that it was so patently unjust that there had been a violation of the fair hearing requirements of the convention.
	In cases where legal aid ought to be provided, the Legal Services Commission is always available to provide legal aid to an impecunious respondent or defendant or to an impecunious claimant. It is not the job of the equality and human rights commission to fund both sides. Were it to do so, it would be placed in an impossible position with an inherent conflict of interest. I do not believe that in the past 30 years there have been proven cases of real injustice—I can remember only one, and that was very special. I believe that the CBI, other business organisations, trade unions and professional bodies are able to come to the assistance of individuals. Insurance can be taken out to cover this, and it is not possible for the equality commission to act as a neutral, impartial funder for the reasons that I have given.

Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, says that it is the duty of the commission to ensure compliance with the law. I can understand the commission saying that it thinks that a person is not complying with the law and should therefore be taken to court, but it is for the court to decide whether the person is or is not complying with the law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is saying that it is all right for an individual who feels distressed to have public funds at his disposal to put his case, which will cost him nothing, but it is not fair for the person against whom that case is being taken to be given public funds. He is obliged to pay everything himself against what could be a scurrilous accusation or a wrong decision by the commission. I do not think that it is fair that the commission should be able to fund a person individually but not able to provide any funds for the person against whom the complaint is made.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is an interesting debate, and it reveals different views about how the commission will operate. I start by reassuring noble Lords that it is not intended that the commission should be anything other than supportive of business. We want the commission to work in a positive spirit with business to encourage compliance. It is not about jumping to the courts at the first opportunity. It is about taking a proportionate approach and acting reasonably.
	We want the commission to engage with business, to offer advice on good practice and do all the things that have commended the work of the commissions to business over the years, hence the support shown by business for the new commission. That is the primary way in which we expect the commission to engage with business. This is about supporting businesses and helping them to make changes where they are needed, not about taking people to court.
	In the commissions as they are there is a role for enforcement, and there will be circumstances were the commission feels that it is important to support an individual victim of discrimination to bring such a claim. That power is available to the existing commissions. In 2003–04, they picked up 400 cases out of 20,000 cases brought before the courts and tribunals.
	There is no suggestion that the power of the existing commissions has resulted in spurious cases being brought. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, the power has been around for 30 years. I have not seen examples of spurious cases, and no noble Lord has mentioned any that have occurred. As a result of the way that we have framed the legislation, I do not expect that any will occur now.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, the commission has the power to compel evidence, and I recognise that aspects of that could be onerous, which is why we have safeguards in place to check the powers of the commission and ensure that they are not used irresponsibly. I refer the noble Earl to Schedule 2, which enables a person served a notice to provide evidence to apply to a court to have the notice cancelled on the ground that it is unnecessary or unreasonable. That is an important safeguard in the Bill.
	The Bill provides for representations to be made and for the commission to consider representations made in relation to an inquiry, investigation or assessment. No party is required to make such representation, nor need they be made by a lawyer or legal adviser of any kind.
	So the first thing I would say to the noble Baroness is that there is no question that the commission will not continue the good work of previous commissions. There have not been spurious cases: cases taken forward have had merit.
	It is also worth looking at how our employment tribunals currently operate. They have become more straightforward, more accessible and better able to sift through the claims that cannot be substantiated. A tribunal application will be accepted only if the aggrieved party has been through the dispute resolution process with his employer, maximising the potential not to end up in court—a good example of how we try to make sure that only the cases with merit are taken forward.
	My contentions are: first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it would be inappropriate and, in a sense, trying to face in both directions at the same time for the commission to offer the support. I am not convinced that that is the best use of the resources that the Government would put before the commission.
	Secondly, and as importantly, there are no examples of spurious cases. That has not occurred in the past. The way we have framed the legislation means that it has the safeguards within it, not least the safeguards I have indicated within Schedule 2.
	Thirdly, the whole premise of the work of the commission is to be supportive of business, hence businesses being supportive of the new commission, which I think is very important.
	On the basis that I have indicated that the commission is designed to support business, not to hinder its operation, and on the basis that that would be an inappropriate use of resources, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. In doing so, I thank the noble Earl for his letter, which I received today. I shall be in touch with him about the issue.

Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Baroness. Would she be kind enough to address her mind to the specific example which I gave? Of course it is right for the commission to support people with a case. Does she not agree that, with all the power and weight of public funds behind a person, it is very unfair for the person against whom that case is being taken, who may have no such funds. I referred to the hotel. The simple answer is, "Well, let us do away with these bibles. We will have no expense, which might otherwise go on for ever. We will do away with them and that is the simplest answer". If that happened there would be a miscarriage of justice because they would not be doing that which they are entitled by law to do.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall think about the noble Lord's point. It relates to cases where, in a sense, the discrimination is the other way and you might have somebody making an attack on a small business or whatever. That is anti-discriminatory and works against what we are trying to do within our anti-discrimination legislation. I would want to see whether the Bill could protect them in those circumstances. I am not sure that the hotel example fits that. I can see the underlying principle behind it. I am very happy to look at that. But in general, this is meant to be a commission that is supportive of business, as are the current commissions. Therefore, to have funds going out in both directions would not be the best use of the resources of the commission. I shall pick up the point.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does the noble Baroness agree with me that if the commission misuses its powers to give assistance in an oppressive way, in the kind of way that has been suggested, that also could give rise to a judicial review, for which an impecunious person could seek legal aid? There are those safeguards. Does she also agree that the budget allocated for cases is so small that these commissions have had to be extraordinarily careful never to misuse their scarce resources in the way that has been suggested?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure the noble Lord is right, as always, on the point of law. On the budget, we have increased that by 40 per cent for the new commission. It is more important for the commission to behave strategically in the cases it takes rather than see that as being a lack of resources, which was a half-hidden implication of what the noble Lord said.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I did not mean to say that. I was saying that of the resources only a tiny proportion ever goes on test litigation.

Earl Ferrers: Does the noble Baroness agree that £70 million is not slender resources compared with the resources of many people against whom these kind of actions can be taken?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, I think that they are good resources. I am glad that the noble Earl agrees with that. Of course the vast majority of those resources are meant to be supportive in giving advice and the issues we discussed in terms of help lines and so on. So I am sure that the resources will be well spent. I do not think that the noble Earl will see within the budget, however it is drawn up, lots of opportunities for spurious claims to be pursued.

Earl Ferrers: I have one more question. The noble Baroness has frequently used the word "support". I agree with that. Does she agree that it should be support and not dictatorial?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I could not agree more. Support is absolutely what it should do. I recognise also that in cases of discrimination the commission should have the power to act. I think that that is right and proper too.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: This has been quite a long debate on two amendments. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for again telling us about the law and particularly pointing out that this has been the case for the past 30 years. I would only say to the noble Lord that of course I do not know about 30 years ago in these terms as I was not here and I am not a lawyer.
	Having said that, I should like to thank particularly my noble friend for advancing support for my amendment, which looks as though it may be "unnecessary" or "inappropriate". I put it in those terms. I would just say to my noble friend, however, that I did not suggest that it had to be like support. My amendment said:
	"The Commission may, at its discretion",
	not that the commission "had to". In view of everything that has been said, of course I shall withdraw my amendment. In doing so, I should say to the Minister that I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness have said, and then decide what I should do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]

Lord Lyell: We come to Amendment No. 132. I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 132 were accepted, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 because they would be pre-empted. Amendment No. 132—Baroness Gibson?

Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can intervene at this moment. I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.27 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

NHS: Specialised Services

Earl Howe: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how current developments in health policy are affecting the commissioning of specialised health services.
	My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must admit to a sense of disappointment that this debate, bearing in mind the importance of the subject, has not attracted more speakers; but that in turn makes me even more grateful to those noble Lords who have indicated their wish to contribute.
	I hope that the House will not mind if I speak for about 12 minutes rather than 10. I begin by saying to the Government that my purpose this evening is not to complain or criticise. It is rather to flag up some issues which I believe merit particularly close attention at the Department of Health if access to specialised health services is to improve in the way that we all wish to see.
	Specialised services are services with low patient numbers and which therefore need a critical mass of patients to make treatment centres cost effective. Cumulatively, they account for about 10 per cent of all commissioning budgets. We are talking here about conditions such as chronic liver disease, which affects about 200,000 people; HIV, which affects about 50,000 people; and end-stage renal failure, where patients number about 37,500. The National Definition Set defines 35 conditions that count as specialised. To plan for services to treat these various conditions, one has to look across sizeable population groups, which is why the Department of Health has advised PCTs to collaborate to ensure that risk is shared and that services are commissioned effectively.
	The commissioning of specialised services is highly complex. It involves collaboration between significant numbers of PCTs, often across strategic health authority boundaries. Although there is departmental guidance on how to do that, specialised services have only a small number of performance indicators and have therefore tended to be something of an afterthought in the development of policy.
	Research conducted last year by the Specialised Healthcare Alliance suggested that the requirements set out in the national definition sets and the associated guidance were not yet fully understood or being followed by PCTs. That finding is of concern, because the collaborative approach to commissioning and delivering services has been recognised in the long-term medical conditions NSF and in the strategy document Creating a Patient-led NHS.
	The finding is borne out in other ways. Funds specifically earmarked for specialised services are not reaching those who need them. Most recently BLISS, the premature baby charity, conducted a review of the additional funding for neo-natal services. It conducted a survey to see how the three-year package of £72 million announced by the department in April 2003 had increased the capacity of neo-natal services in England. It found that among neo-natal networks only 34 per cent of the revenue money distributed in 2003–04 was spent on improving the neo-natal service. A third of the money resulted in no improvement. It was either spent on propping up existing budgets or lost in PCT overspends on services unconnected with neo-natal care. Identical problems have been highlighted in cancer services, cystic fibrosis and HIV.
	That kind of pressure on PCT budgets is likely to be augmented by the advent of practice-based commissioning. The need to underwrite overspends by practices will almost certainly squeeze the funding for specialised services even more. For that reason, it may now be timely to revisit the way in which specialised services are commissioned and to see whether funding via specialised commissioning groups rather than via PCTs may be a more effective way of ensuring that money is spent where it is meant.
	If that idea does not commend itself to Ministers, at least the current risk-sharing arrangements between PCTs should be looked at. Last year, the Specialised Healthcare Alliance found that risk-sharing arrangements varied considerably between PCTs and that in some cases there were no arrangements of any kind in place. In fact, for many PCTs there is little incentive to risk-share. Quite a few specialised conditions are genetic. Because of that, one finds a small number of PCTs being saddled with a gigantic financial burden.
	One haemophiliac being treated with inhibitors can cost the NHS as much as £1 million in the space of a year. If a patient with complex haemophilia develops a serious bleed in mid-March, the cost of treating him could destabilise the entire PCT. There are similar hazards in the case of spinal injuries and serious burns. We need to make sure that risk-sharing arrangements are comprehensively in place to protect PCTs from unacceptable financial burdens and to guarantee that patients who are in need receive treatment.
	If I could mention one particular area of concern, it would be renal services. There is a national service framework, but it is unfunded and PCTs have no obligation to treat it as a priority. If some PCTs—perhaps without any expertise in the field—opt out of funding the full range of services, there is suddenly no clear patient pathway, and patients can find it difficult if not impossible to access highly specialised treatment such as dialysis and transplantation. We are seeing in renal care the antithesis of equity in the provision of services.
	Perhaps the most significant policy development affecting specialised commissioning is payment by results. It is early days, but the system looks set to throw up a number of problems. The first worry, which has been widely voiced, is that the amount of the tariff does not adequately cover the diversity and complexity of some specialist care. There are many examples: specialist paediatrics; cochlear implants; spinal injury care; and rare metabolic diseases.
	The cost of a bone marrow transplant in the same provider can vary between £13,000 and £83,000. As such cases multiply, the budgets of provider trusts will rapidly come under pressure. The second main worry relates to specialised services that are not included in the tariff system. The Audit Commission has predicted that there will be an overshoot in spending on payment by results. If that happens, there will then, as night follows day, be a squeeze on the budgets of all the services that remain outside the scope of the tariff system. Many of those services have a relatively high cost attached to them and are subject to volatile demand. Those services are undoubtedly very exposed.
	Foundation trusts have been leading the way in operating payment by results; and early reports suggest that they have found the system a serious challenge. The monitoring panel established by the Specialised Healthcare Alliance with the support of three royal colleges, has indicated that the balance between financial priorities and clinical priorities has been moving in the wrong direction. Last week's report on foundation trusts from the Healthcare Commission said that, in some areas where relations between the acute trust and the wider health community had been poor, those poor relationships had been exacerbated by a trust becoming a foundation trust.
	The result in some cases has been a noticeable lack of co-operation in planning the provision of specialised services. In particular, some commissioners reported that certain foundation trusts, in order to safeguard their income, were showing a marked reluctance to give up providing specialist services, when it was clear to all concerned that there were better ways of providing that care. For example, the management of chronic conditions such as diabetes could often be more appropriately achieved in community settings; but trusts were not prepared to relinquish the income from those services. Those perverse incentives need looking at.
	This bears out the observations of the NAO in its report on the national cancer plan, which said that the new freedoms granted to foundation trusts could serve to limit effective partnership working and collective efficiency. To the extent that that is happening, or could happen, it is very serious. Agreements among networks, particularly those relating to complex specialised services, can take many years to develop. A unilateral decision by a foundation trust to withdraw from the provision of a specialised service or enter into one could have a significant impact across a wide area. It is far from clear who is responsible for monitoring the impact of foundation trusts on collaborative working and clinical standards.
	Monitor has stated that it regards its role first and foremost as a financial one, and it is by no means apparent that it has the resources to do more than that. The Healthcare Commission has recommended that Ministers should consider what specialised services can be developed by foundation trusts. I suggest that thought also needs to be given to which body should assume responsibility for monitoring the impact of a trust's decision-making across a wide area; and what the precise role and responsibilities of that body should be.
	It is noticeable that commissioning is not included in the Healthcare Commission's strategic plan for 2005–08. Given that the commission is able to work across organisations and boundaries, it is surely well placed to help improve the access, the quality and the effectiveness of specialised healthcare; so in that sense the omission is decidedly regrettable.
	What is to be done? For one or two highly specialised services, there is no doubt that centralised funding is needed. For example, services to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension are in crisis. Unlike heart-lung transplantation, they are not funded by NSCAG. For two years, they were funded on an emergency basis by regional specialised commissioning groups. From April 2005, that has been withdrawn, and the burden now falls on designated hospital trusts, which have no incentive to provide services from their local budgets. For drug therapies, just getting a PCT to authorise funding is lengthy and bureaucratic, and a four-week delay—that is typical—can prove highly damaging for the patient. Staffing levels and infrastructure for PAH are below those needed to meet the standards of care that NSCAG recommends.
	Resorting to centralised funding is, perhaps, the exception. The key is to find a mechanism that will beef up and support collaborative commissioning at a more local level. We need to look again at the way in which payment by results should be applied. We need new and more sophisticated tariffs. We need better product classifications. To that end, the risks and problems of payment by results must be confronted squarely and an effort made to define a shared vision for the delivery of services in which the clinical experts and not just the managers are involved. Anything short of that will result in a worsening, not an improvement, of the postcode lottery, which we all deplore, that affects many of the countries most needy and vulnerable patients.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for tabling this Unstarred Question, which is of the utmost importance to so many people who rely on the many specialties in the National Health Service, many of which become the patient's lifeline. With all specialist services, there is extra training, extra skills, extra time and extra dedication needed, and there is always the need for research so that progress can be made.
	I declare an interest as founder and life president of the Spinal Injuries Association; a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society; president of the North-East Kidney Association; and president of the local Motor Neurone Disease Association in Yorkshire. I also have a husband who has had strokes, is diabetic and who has Parkinson's disease.
	Following a year-long review that the Department of Health announced in early April, 2003, for new arrangements for the commissioning of specialised services, primary care trusts now have responsibility for the planning, commissioning and monitoring of specialised services, working collaboratively within regional commissioning consortia.
	As has been said by the noble Earl, specialised services commissioning is highly complex, involving collaboration between significant numbers of the PCTs and across strategic health authority boundaries, with a view to maintaining specialist services, skills and expertise to run them. However, specialist services relate to few performance indicators and have traditionally been somewhat of an afterthought in the development of policy.
	Why was commissioning omitted from the national standards? Commissioning does not seem to be covered by the new strategic plan developed by the Healthcare Commission for 2005–08. Many people feel that that represents a major omission, as the Healthcare Commission, with its ability to work across organisations and boundaries, reflecting the patient journey, is well-placed to improve the availability, access, quality and effectiveness of specialised healthcare.
	People who require specialist medical services have complex needs. It is alarming how sexually transmitted infections continue to rise. It is interesting to hear that, according to research by the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV and the Terrence Higgins Trust, only half of genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics received their full share of a special £5 million allocation from the Department of Health at the end of 2003, after it had passed through PCTs. In contrast, in January 2003, when funding went to them directly from the department, nearly 90 per cent of clinics received the full amount. Similar problems have been highlighted in cancer services, cystic fibrosis and neonatal care—and, I am sure, many other specialities.
	There is a wide variation in the percentage of income allocated to direct patient benefit to the nine specialist spinal cord injury centres based in England and Wales. Scotland has not had this problem, as the Scotland Office agrees the funding allocated to the National Spinal Injuries Centre in Glasgow. The Spinal Injuries Association has advocated a national spinal cord injuries board to rescue that vulnerable specialised service and achieve the financial transparency and stability established in Scotland.
	Failing that, essential is an audit of funds allocated by the commissioners to ensure that the money arrives at spinal injury centres. The association appreciates that hospital trust chief executives must balance the books or face penalties, but rules or guidelines are required to ensure that a reasonable proportion of allocated funds benefits the intended specialist patient services. Funds needed to plug the holes in the spinal service must not be used to plug leaks elsewhere. The association was promised audit figures by one hospital trust board, but they failed to materialise after questions and excuses after a meeting of the board. Unofficially, the spinal centres report the problem and commissioners are advised, but no one dares to stick their neck out for fear of suspension or being penalised.
	A way forward would be to ensure that an agreed percentage of income attributed to the spinal centres is passed on for direct spinal patient benefit.
	Over the years, beds on the 11 specialist spinal injury centres have been closed due to a lack of staff or funds, yet general hospital patients continue to be allocated to specialist spinal beds. Recently, this has led to virulent infections being introduced to spinal patients at one centre—Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Lack of isolation beds has led to patients with MRSA being treated in open wards in spinal injury centres. That is very worrying.
	One spinal injury centre has stopped out-patient therapy services—physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The cut has been necessary to safeguard therapy services for in-patients. The centre generates a substantial income, so it was agreed that it would not be affected by the year-on cuts in department expenditure. Unfortunately, it appears that the therapy provision in the centre does not fall under the financial control of the centre and is in fact a separate service that must be bought in. There is far too much fragmenting. It seems bizarre that a specialist centre cannot regulate a service so integral to a function of rehabilitation.
	There are insufficient UK spinal beds to admit newly spinal-cord injured people within 24 hours—which is the target. Since 1980, the number of beds has fallen, while the surviving population grows and best practice is to provide a check-up for spinal-cord-injured people once a year. I have not had one for about 10 years. Increased pressure on beds has led to readmissions being unable to return to their specialist treatment centre and being inappropriately treated in non-specialist hospitals.
	Recently, a woman—one of many people unable to get to the spinal centre for treatment—was treated inappropriately in a local hospital, and is now unconscious and in intensive care in a spinal unit.
	The young mother, who was recently brutally stabbed in the neck in front of her young son, leaving her totally paralysed, is now making progress owing to being treated in a specialised spinal injury centre. That highlights the need for those vital units.
	I hope that this short debate will have some sort of impact showing that, without honest commissioning, the specialist services will miss out and patients will suffer.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for calling this important debate. I am grateful to him for allowing me to air some of my concerns regarding specialised health services for children who sexually harm other children and children who are recovering from sexual abuse.
	The issue of children who sexually harm was raised during the course of the Sexual Offences Bill. It became clear that progress in developing services was slow and that need was not being met. The Government acknowledged that, and I was invited by the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to continue to press Her Majesty's Government on this issue.
	According to Childline retrospective research shows that 25 to 40 per cent of all alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse are young people themselves. Research from Barnardo's indicates that while most children who abuse grow out of their behaviour, one study of six years showed that 18 per cent of those who had not received an intervention went on to re-offend while, of those who had received an intervention, only 5 per cent did so. The relevant study was carried out by Worling and Curwen in 2000 on Adolescent sexual offence recidivism: Successive specialised treatment and implications for risk prediction.
	According to Barnardo's, most children displaying sexually harmful behaviour do not require a specialist service. Those who may need such specialist support are the youngest children—those under 10 years of age, who will often have experienced extended abuse themselves. The specialist service they require is that which would also be given to children who had experienced sexual abuse. Children with learning difficulties who sexually harm are also more likely to need a specialist service.
	Currently there are problems with the commissioning of specialist health services in this area. Services are in short supply and not available locally. Those problems were highlighted for me during a visit to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Young Abusers project in north London a few years ago. Dr Eileen Vizard, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst heads the multidisciplinary team. She explained that primary care trusts were not adequately equipped to recognise the need to fund a specialised service such as hers.
	The project therefore experienced continued uncertainty about its future, and the NSPCC was meeting costs that should have been met by the health service. Her problems were exacerbated because local authorities would pull her clients prematurely from their treatment. The LAs did not wish to fund the travel and treatment costs for the child. As soon as the symptoms of their behaviour subsided they were removed, often with little or no notice, to the serious detriment of the success of the treatment.
	Furthermore, it is clear from evidence produced in Wales at a recent conference that some children who sexually harm are being placed in normal, non-specialist children's homes. One has to be concerned that children with such a history are being placed in an environment that includes vulnerable children, some of whom may themselves have experienced sexual abuse. When it is necessary to remove a child from his family—normally one can retain children in their families in these circumstances—a suitable foster placement needs to be made available for a child who sexually harms so that he poses no risk to children immediately around him.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. I should be grateful if he could tell me whether the parents, carers and children affected are involved in developing specialist provision in this area. Is there a Department of Health map, making clear to individuals the availability of specialist provision, both for children who abuse and who have been abused? What progress is the Minister and his colleagues in other departments making to address the need for specialist provision?

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for securing the debate. Like him I am sad to see so few speakers listed on a matter of considerable concern to all of us with a love for, and knowledge of, the National Health Service.
	Specialised health services have always been difficult to organise in this and other countries. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I have to say that in my family we manage to produce a fair number of conditions just to give the Minister a certain amount of concern. Between us we can produce nephritic syndrome, Wegener's granulomatosis, nodular vasculitis, to name a few. No doubt other noble Lords in the Chamber can cite a litany of relatively rare conditions that match or outdo my lot.
	The important thing is that there are very many conditions that are relatively rare, for which there will be one, two or perhaps half a dozen enthusiastic experts in the country. Organising services and sending patients a couple of hundred miles or more has always been a difficult issue.
	There are also the slightly more common conditions, which still have relatively low patients numbers, which cumulatively, as the specialised healthcare allowance makes clear, account for some 10 per cent or so of overall commissioning budgets. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the 200,000 or so people with chronic liver disease of one kind or another. I declare an interest because my brother-in-law, Professor James Neuberger, is an expert in those subjects and runs a supra-regional specialist service.
	There are 350,000 or so people with neuro-degenerative diseases, 50,000 or so with HIV/AIDS and 37,500 people with end stage renal failure. I agree completely with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on issues to do with renal disease. In this country we have been gradually getting ourselves into a real mess on end stage renal failure.
	Such conditions may give rise to a need for very specialised treatment, as may many more common conditions, which produce a slightly unexpected symptom, such as rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes. The problem is that the numbers in any one PCT will be small. In some cases, there will be only one or at most two patients who need such specialised services in any one PCT. When our daughter had nephritic syndrome some 20 years ago, the GP had never seen it before, but nevertheless diagnosed it accurately. She was brilliant and we were very fortunate. It is hard enough for GPs to diagnose rare conditions without their then having to fight hard to get treatment for their patients because the system is so stacked against them if the condition is rare.
	Commissioning such services is really difficult. It requires a great deal of collaboration between significant numbers of PCTs across strategic health authority boundaries, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear. It requires a system that is focused on keeping specialist centres going, and maintaining the skills and expertise of staff in sufficient numbers to run them.
	The Government have been rightly keen to emphasise the benefits of a collaborative, multi-agency approach to commissioning and delivering services. In the national service framework for long-term medical conditions, the Government were clear that such a multi-agency approach was the only way forward.
	On the one hand, the Government recognise the need for services and recognise that planning and commissioning them has to be done collaboratively and across agencies. On the other hand, there is the relatively new system of payment by results, which might cause real problems.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear, if specialised services have been included in a payment by result system, it is unclear whether the top-up arrangements will be sufficient to cover the costs. Equally if they happen to be excluded, how will those excluded specialities and drugs be protected from an overshoot on spending on payment by results? How will they be funded? Will there be an increasing tendency simply not to fund, and to push the problem on to someone else? We want to get away from pushing people with rare conditions around the country from pillar to post.
	That is significant because we are not, on the whole, talking about powerful groups of patients. It is not like breast cancer patients, for instance, who can flex a bit of muscle and argue for better resources, using the media and overwhelming public sympathy to boost their case. Nor is it like women having babies where the maternity services are increasingly having to bow to consumer pressure in a variety of ways, be it birthing pools, midwives visiting at home or a choice of analgesia.
	People with relatively rare conditions, who make up a considerable proportion of NHS patients in total, tend to have relatively little asking power;, the same is true of their doctors or other specialists, largely because the numbers involved in each condition tend to be so low. So practice-based commissioning may pose considerable danger to those with rare-ish conditions. The experience of practice-based or PCT-based commissioning does not lead one to have the greatest of confidence thus far. If commissioning is still generally agreed to be relatively weak and PCTs have to underwrite any overspend by practices, specialised services may well be the first to suffer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made clear, the absence of commissioning from the Healthcare Commission's 2005–08 strategic plan does not bode well for all of that.
	Already, some funds that have been earmarked for some specialised services have failed to reach those in need in full. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made the case very powerfully for the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV and the Terrence Higgins Trust report, which showed that only 50 per cent of GUM clinics received their full share of the original £5 million special allocation at the end of 2003. It went through the PCTs, which found ways of delivering some of the services or said that they needed some of the money for overhead costs. You can tell the difference because in January 2003, when funding went straight from the Department of Health, nearly 90 per cent of the clinics received the full amount. As the Specialised Healthcare Alliance makes clear, similar problems have been highlighted in cystic fibrosis and neonatal care. Therefore, this is not a small issue.
	So what should we do? Given the changes in financial structures and the move to practice-based commissioning, perhaps money for those services should be funnelled in different ways, such as through the specialised commissioning groups, so that it reaches patient groups. If that does not work, and it does not seem to be working all of the time, at least the current risk-sharing arrangements between PCTs should be reviewed, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear. Risk-sharing arrangements vary considerably between PCTs. There are often no arrangements in place. For many PCTs there is simply no incentive to share risk at all. The fact is that with a large number of specialised conditions being genetically transmitted, there is not a lot of temptation for local PCTs to share the risk. The Specialised Healthcare Alliance cites a single PCT with 14 patients with Gaucher's disease, with drugs costing more than £1.5 million in 2005–06. Neighbouring PCTs are not particularly likely to want to share that risk, yet 12 of those 14 patients come from one family, meaning that they live virtually next door to each other. No next-door trust will want to help.
	Will the Minister assure us that appropriate risk-sharing arrangements will be put in place properly, if necessary, by getting Department of Health intervention? Can he assure us that the National Leadership Network for Health and Social Care ensures the recognition of complex needs for people who need specialist services? Can he also tell us what will happen to those relatively rare conditions for which a national service framework is unlikely because the occurrence is so rare? What will be done to set and measure standards in those situations?
	Furthermore, in mental health—a particular passion of mine—how many specialist mental health commissions are there in PCTs at the moment? Of those, how many can deal with rare conditions, which certainly exist in mental health, such as Tourette's syndrome, for which, when I chaired an NHS trust, we always had two dedicated beds. As the Minister will no doubt know, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health—I have to declare an interest as a member of its advisory board—has already argued that GP commissioning for mental health is a real problem.
	Alan Cohen, director of primary care at the Sainsbury Centre, said:
	"Practice based commissioning is the logical conclusion of the government's NHS reforms. But it will not work for patients unless we can be sure that all services are of sufficient quality, that choices are supported by good information, and that cost considerations do not distort decision making. None of these conditions yet apply to mental health services in England".
	When will the core standards adopted by the Healthcare Commission incorporate a benchmark on the capability and competence of PCT commissioning in general and for specialist services in particular? And now, when will it also incorporate a standard for practice-based commissioning?
	For too long we have seen "orphan" drugs for rare conditions waiting to be tested and marketed because patient numbers are too low. Similarly, in a comprehensive NHS, issues exist about relatively rare conditions. We must be able to grapple with those properly—both with PCTs and practices where we welcome local commissioning, but where, perhaps sometimes at a more strategic level because of lack of local expertise, we will need to go regional or supra-regional. If that needs to be at regional or supra-regional levels, beyond the specialised commissioning groups and the local specialised commissioning groups, could we not live with that despite the system being largely and rightly devolved?
	Finally, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that risk-sharing arrangements need to be comprehensively in place and that payment by results needs to be reviewed in the light of those conditions. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some comfort about those specialist conditions. At the moment, things are not looking too good or too rosy for people with rare conditions in our country.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that this is an important topic for discussion. I assure him and other noble Lords that we take this issue very seriously and we take seriously the views of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. I am very grateful for the thoughtful and constructive way that noble Lords have approached this debate.
	Our guidance on commissioning arrangements for specialised services has ensured that primary care trusts act collaboratively when commissioning these types of services and that strategic health authorities oversee these collaborative arrangements, although I do not claim that all of the problems have been resolved. There are now 26 local specialised commissioning groups and eight specialised commissioning groups in England covering specialised and very specialised services respectively.
	The result of this collective commissioning behaviour has been to ensure that a strategic approach is taken towards specialised services; investments are jointly agreed; risk-sharing arrangements are implemented where appropriate; and services are monitored and outcomes measured.
	We know about some of the problems in this area because there are arrangements in place for monitoring what is happening. By definition, specialised services are those services provided in relatively few specialist centres to a catchment population of more than a million people. One specialist centre will draw patients from at least eight to 10 PCTs. If the service is highly specialised, it could be as many as 40 PCTs.
	For that reason, it is important that PCTs work together to commission specialised services. These services include services such as paediatric intensive care services and services for sickle cell disease. To assist commissioners and providers, we have published 35 specialised service definitions on the Department of Health website.
	Our 2002 review into commissioning arrangements for specialised services in England sought views on the best ways to plan, procure and monitor those services where a specialist centre covers the population of many PCTs. Guidance based on the responses to the review was issued in March 2003. It underlined that PCTs should form collaborative commissioning groups to commission specialised services and that strategic health authorities should oversee those collaborative arrangements.
	Each specialised commissioning group has a dedicated commissioning team consisting of commissioners, public health advisers and finance and information staff, funded by the PCTs in that group. To ensure that an integrated approach to commissioning takes place for both local and specialised services, each PCT is expected to incorporate plans for specialised services in its local delivery plans and workforce development plans.
	Specialised services are inevitably usually at one end of a continuum of care, stretching from primary-care services to tertiary-care services, and are increasingly delivered as part of a managed clinical network. The patient may receive most of his treatment from the primary-care sector or from his local general hospital and spend a relatively short time at a specialist centre.
	Specialised services commissioning is seen as an integral part of policies to develop and strengthen cancer and cardiac networks. We have recognised the benefits of a collaborative multi-agency approach to commissioning and delivering services in two recent government documents, The National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions and Creating a Patient-led NHS.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has indicated, Creating a Patient-led NHS is the start of a programme of significant and fundamental reform. Key to that programme will be the reshaping of commissioning functions. We recognise the need to streamline the number of PCTs and a proper fitness-for-purpose exercise will need to take place. Work is in hand to take this forward. There will be a period of public consultation on the necessary changes, but I hope that we will have made good progress by April 2006 and completed the streamlining of PCTs no later than April 2007.
	I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome of that work other than to say that most PCTs will cover a larger geographical territory than now and we will want to ensure good alignment with unitary local authority boundaries. I would expect specialised services commissioning still to require the collaboration of PCTs to some extent after the number of PCTs is reduced, but the bodies collaborating should be fewer in number.
	To ensure transparency, PCTs are expected to make public the remit and rules of engagement of their specialised commissioning group, so that local residents are clear who is commissioning a given specialised service for them at any one time. Specialised commissioning groups tend to put such information on their websites for maximum access. These arrangements will continue, but I will want to look carefully at how specialised commissioning has worked as we take forward the streamlining of PCTs exercise. I accept that we may need to look again at the commissioning arrangements at the national level. We will not hesitate to do that as we take forward PCT streamlining.
	In line with our policy on involving patients and the public, we expect those interests to be involved in the commissioning of specialised services. It is usual practice to invite users to participate in specific service review groups. The London specialised commissioning group's strategy for patient and public involvement included the establishment of a patients' reference group, with representative seats on the main group, and expert networks and nominated patient leads for all specialised service areas.
	To date, the establishment of commissioning consortia for specific specialised services is a common arrangement, with one lead commissioner acting for everyone, rather than a multitude of individual commissioners. Streamlining PCTs will of course reduce the size of the consortia and make easier the setting up of financial risk-sharing mechanisms, where the specialised treatments are unpredictable, low volume and very high cost.
	The policy guidance on practice-based commissioning, which devolves a significant proportion of commissioning from a PCT to a practice or locality level, explicitly excludes specialised services, as we recognise that the commissioning of specialised services needs to be done at a much higher level by groups of PCTs acting together. However, we will be developing practice-based commissioning rapidly on a tiered basis and this will free up strategic commissioning time within the world of a streamlined PCT structure. So, practice-based commissioning should in theory assist better specialised commissioning, not hinder it.
	By the end of 2005, under our choose and book programme, patients needing planned hospital care will be able to choose from four or more providers for their treatment when they are referred by their GP. They will also have the opportunity to book their outpatient appointments. For many specialised services, patient referrals are often made by a hospital doctor and not a GP, meaning that patients will not be offered a further choice at present although they will still have the opportunity to book their hospital appointment. We will certainly look carefully at the implications for specialised commissioning and for moving in 2008 to free choice of healthcare provider for planned hospital care.
	The creation of national tariffs under the payment by results programme, to which several noble Lords alluded, will focus discussions between commissioners and providers on quality, not cost. They will incentivise efficient provision, support patient choice, facilitate diversity of provision and promote fairness.
	For specialised services, we recognise that until the healthcare resource grouping codes have been updated it is not sensible to try to create national tariffs for some specialised services. Consequently, we have excluded all nationally commissioned specialised activity plus a number of high-cost drugs, specialist devices and specialist procedures. We have also defined a list of specialist procedures and diagnoses that, although not excluded from the tariff, attract a supplement that is paid over and above the basic tariff price. For example, specialist procedures for children are paid at 53 per cent above the basic tariff price.
	We are keeping the list of exclusions and supplements under review and the views of the NHS are being sought on a continuing basis to inform the process. We shall certainly proceed with caution in the area of specialised services as we take forward payment by results. It is not in anybody's interest to damage specialised services through the new payment by results system.
	We have also heard concerns that the new freedoms of foundation trusts may have an effect on partnership working and collective efficiency. To support the commissioning of specialised services from foundation trusts we have developed model contracts for multi- commissioner situations and these models have been used as the basis for successfully agreeing contracts between foundation trusts and specialised commissioning groups. The Healthcare Commission's review of foundation trusts to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, alluded and which was published last week, found that for the majority of the 20 foundation trusts studied, the experience of contracting was characterised by better information and joint problem solving, despite the problems in some areas that he mentioned.
	On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the difficult issue of a child sexually harming another child, the Department of Health and the Home Office have jointly launched a victims of violence and abuse prevention programme which is working closely with a wide range of stakeholders including the NSPCC on a number of issues, including the one that the noble Earl raised. I am happy to write to him to brief him on that programme in greater detail.
	I cannot go into a great deal of detail on renal services, but we have put very considerable additional resources into that area. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of spinal injuries. A national survey of paediatric spinal injury units carried out by a specialised commissioning group in the Thames Valley area resulted in additional funding for their local spinal injury units to support a dedicated unit for children. The south-east England specialised commissioning groups are together drawing up standards for improving the three adult spinal injuries units, so there is work going on in this particular area.
	In conclusion, the test question that we should ask ourselves at the end of the day is whether the outcomes for patients have improved. Our goal has always been to ensure that the right patient is offered the right treatment by the right provider in the right place. Our new policies will mean that they will also address better the right standard and the right price. I am confident that the further system in NHS reform that we are taking forward will benefit patients and, if anything, strengthen specialised commissioning, which we will look at carefully, as I said, as we take forward these reforms.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.28 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.28 pm.]

Equality Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 30.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 17, line 23, leave out subsection (5).

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: This is a probing amendment, which I am pleased to move. I recognise that I may have misread the Bill, but it seems to me that subsection (5) restricts assistance to cases under equality law and, as such, places an undue restriction on the new commission.
	The commission should be free to bring strategic legal cases under relevant employment and non-transposed EU law; for example, under the part-time workers directive. Such a prohibition does not exist in current discriminatory legislation. The current commissioners have always exercised their discretion responsibly, and I am sure that future commissioners would do so as well.
	I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the clause is not restrictive. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper: If the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 inclusive, by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: For that reason, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 133 to 136, which have been grouped with Amendment No. 132 in the name of the noble Baroness. They all deal with questions about the integration of human rights.
	The promotion and protection of human rights is an essential element of the mandate of the new commission. It is important that those duties are not sidelined. Human rights will provide an important tool in achieving the right balance between the different grounds for discrimination. As the Committee will appreciate, there are, for example, built-in conflicts between sexual orientation discrimination and religious discrimination that may arise in certain contexts. There are questions of privacy that must be taken into account in the context of equality.
	The Government White Paper Fairness for All, published in May 2004, specifically asked whether the commission should be enabled to continue supporting cases with both discrimination and human rights dimensions after the discrimination arguments fall. The government response to the consultation, published in November 2004, noted:
	"A majority of respondents felt the legitimacy of the CEHR would be undermined if it were not able to continue to support cases on the grounds of human rights, even if the discrimination element (under which the case would originally have been taken by the CEHR) falls away".
	Despite the extensive consultation and the clear and overwhelming response from the consultees, we are disappointed to note that the Bill provides, in Clause 30(6), that such cases can continue only if the Secretary of State so orders. We therefore propose amendments to enable the commission to continue to support such cases when the equality element of the case falls away, without requiring that the Secretary of State makes such an order.
	I should add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that the order-making power in Clause 30(5)(a) is too restrictive. The order-making power would only apply when the claimant had originally relied in part on Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Joint Committee believes that this,
	"would not accommodate the situation where, for example, the court, in fulfilment of its own obligations as a public authority under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, brings a Convention right into consideration in the case".
	That is from page 11, paragraph 20 of the 16th Report of the JCHR.
	I hope that the substance of the amendments will be accepted, so that we will not have the artificial dividing of equality and human rights into watertight compartments in a way that will not serve the interests of justice or the intended beneficiaries of the human rights legislation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issues and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his views. The noble Lord has rightly reflected the views of some stakeholders—I know that the noble Lord hates that word; none the less I will use it in this context—who have argued about this.
	I want to set out the position as the Government see it. As noble Lords will know from previous discussions, we recognise that the commission cannot support every case that is brought to its door. It needs to select cases strategically. I indicated previously that it was about 400 cases out of 20,000 that the combined commissions sought to support.
	It is in relation to the equality enactments that the commission can best use its power to add real value. It would not be right to allow the commission to support only the discrimination aspects of cases that, for example, relied on discrimination and unfair dismissal arguments or discrimination and human rights arguments, which are called "combined cases". However, we also do not consider it right that the commission should continue to support combined cases once the discrimination arguments fall. Under the legislation, therefore, the commission supports combined cases for as long as they retain their equality elements. If the arguments relating to those elements no longer form part of the case, as noble Lords will know, Clause 30(5)(b) provides that the commission cannot continue to support the case.
	We are concerned that allowing the support to continue in the absence of the equality core could increase the number of cases seeking support from the commission, something that we would not necessarily want to see. We want to ensure that the commission does not have to spend resources on weeding out cases that it does not want to support. We have long resolved that it should operate only on combined cases with equality issues and that the support would fall away in the circumstances that I have indicated.
	We have also long resolved that the commission should not support cases solely under the Human Rights Act 1998. Public funding is already available for such cases, and to duplicate that would cause unnecessary confusion. Also, human rights cases can cover a wide range of areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, the combined cases power was a response to where the stakeholders felt we might usefully see the commission support cases with its work.
	We have no way of estimating with any accuracy how many combined cases there will be; how many the commission may choose to support; how many of those would later lose their relation to the equality enactments and trigger Clause 30(5); and how many of those would retain arguments. That is why we have inserted subsection (6), which is the order-making power. The plan is straightforward. Once the commission is up and running, we will be able to talk to it and take a view on whether an order under subsection (6) should be made. An order would be made that could either allow for all combined cases that become pure human rights cases or for a class of such cases to be taken forward.
	The Bill enables the Secretary of State to enact the power once the commission is up and running and once we have some clear indication of how best to use the power, to enable us to take a pragmatic approach to the issues that have been raised. It allows us to make a decision on the evidence put before us, rather than on the basis of not yet knowing which cases will continue.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wonder whether the Minister can help me. I am unclear about how that will work in practice.
	It is not clear why Parliament cannot take the decision, rather than the Secretary of State at some future time. That is an issue of principle. I shall give a practical example, however and ask for help. Suppose that I am arguing a combined case and that the other side say, "Take the equality point first and the human rights point second". They will know that I cannot get assistance for the human rights point from the commission. So I argue the equality point first, and I fail. At this point the funding disappears for the second point.
	I have then got to consider what is to be done on appeal. I think that I should win on both points. Under this rigid scheme, whose flexibility we can only hope will occur in the future, if the Secretary of State makes an order at some future date, how will I, as the litigant, be able to secure justice by way of appeal? I am not talking about principle, but the practical implications seem not to be workable.
	How would the Minister solve that kind of problem under her scheme in a way that allowed both issues to be litigated and supported at first instance and then litigated on appeal in a way that allowed them to be combined again and continued before the combination occurred again? I fear that, as with many well intentioned schemes, a lot of court time and legal costs will be wasted in sorting out this kind of problem.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The note that I have just been given says that if it is open to appeal it is still an equality issue.
	The noble Lord in a sense makes my point for me. He has just put forward a hypothetical example of what could happen. I am trying to argue that the reason that we have the order-making power is precisely for the commission, when it is up and running, in dialogue with the Secretary of State—which is a straightforward way of approaching this—to look at how best we take forward the cases and address the points raised by the noble Lord. The point is that we do not yet know what position we will be in, and we do not have the commission there to give us advice on how it thinks the order-making power should operate.
	So, as I have indicated, the order-making power could say that a certain class of cases should continue regardless, and that might cover the point raised by the noble Lord, or it might be that all cases could continue in a particular way if the equality issues were dropped. In other words, we have the power to address the point in the Bill—but not in a hypothetical way—with the commission, based on what we think is going to happen and based on the evidence that we have before us. We are not terribly far apart on this.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend for her explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 133 to 137 not moved.]
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Legal assistance: costs]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 18, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In moving Amendment No. 138, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 and 162. The effect of this group of amendments is to ensure that the Government's policy that the commission should be able to recover its costs or expenses from an award made to an individual whose case is supported by the commission works in Scotland as it does in England and Wales.
	It relates to any case where an individual might receive assistance for legal proceedings from both the commission and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. While that is likely to be rare, it has occurred with the existing commissions, and it is most likely to occur where the Scottish Legal Aid Board supports a case at one stage of the legal process and the commission supports it at another, for example, on appeal. There is currently a statutory impediment in Scotland that does not apply in England and Wales. Amendment No. 138 removes the existing provision in relation to Scotland, which is considered not to work.
	Amendment No. 139 substitutes an improved provision that makes clear that the provisions of Clause 32 shall not affect the operation of Section 17(2A) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986.
	Amendment No. 162 is an amendment to Schedule 3, which deals with amendments that are consequential to Part 1 of the Bill. The effect of the amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 is to remove the statutory impediment that prevents the Scottish Legal Aid Board paying out the surplus of an award of expenses after it has recovered its own costs. Accepting the amendment will enable the commission to recover its costs from an award made to a litigant to whom it has offered mixed support with the Scottish Legal Aid Board, after the Scottish Legal Aid Board has recovered its own costs. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 18, line 24, at end insert—
	"(3A) Subsection (2), in its application to Scotland, shall not affect the operation of section 17(2A) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c. 47) (requirement in certain cases to pay to the Scottish Legal Aid Board sums recovered under awards of, or agreements as to, expenses)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Judicial review and other legal proceedings]:

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: moved Amendment No. 141:
	Page 19, line 4, leave out "are without prejudice to" and insert "disapply"

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Clause 32(1) makes it clear that the commission will have the capacity to institute or intervene in legal proceedings, whether for judicial review or otherwise, if it appears to the commission that the proceedings are relevant. It codifies the existing case law, which has enabled the EOC, the CRE and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to seek judicial review of legislation, rules or administrative practices and procedures where they are contrary to the human right to equal treatment without discrimination, as expressed in UK and European legislation.
	The power of the equality commissions to seek judicial review has proved to be valuable, cost-effective and proportionate. It has enabled them to obtain from the specialised administrative court a declaration on the law and its application, without the need to support legal proceedings by individuals claiming to be victims of breaches of the sex discrimination or race relations Acts. I will give just a couple of examples where I was privileged to act for the EOC in judicial review proceedings.
	The first example is in the field of education. Birmingham City Council operated a system in which some of the secondary schools were single sex grammar schools. There were more places for boys than for girls. Birmingham City Council denied that this was contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act, so the girls had less access to that form of education than boys in Birmingham. The Law Lords ruled otherwise and more places for girls were duly provided. This was achieved without the need for any individual girl or her parents to bring county court proceedings. Exactly the same happened in Northern Ireland where Mr Justice Hutton—as he then was—gave landmark judgments that changed that practice in Northern Ireland. Exactly the same also happened in Hong Kong where the EOC for Hong Kong succeeded in a judicial review of a secondary school selection process which discriminated against girls.
	To give a second example—because examples help—a policy involving sex discrimination against pregnant women in the Armed Forces was eliminated as a result of judicial review proceedings brought by the EOC. In a further judicial review the EOC obtained a declaration that the exclusion of part-time workers from employment benefits was contrary to European community law.
	Clause 32(1) makes it clear that the commission will be able to use this beneficial procedure in cases involving equality and non-discrimination, but Clause 32(3)(c) seeks to prevent the commission from seeking judicial review of legislation rules or administrative practices which are incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This is because Section 7 of the Human Rights Act enables only individual victims to bring proceedings alleging breaches of the duty imposed on public authorities to act in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission will have no power to assist individuals in bringing legal proceedings under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act because legal assistance is restricted by Clause 30 to proceedings relating to the equality enactments. Nor will the commission have the power to issue compliance notices for breaches of public sector duties under the Human Rights Act because Clause 34 is restricted to the duties imposed by the equality enactments.
	There is a lack of symmetry in the Bill as it stands. The commission may be the subject of judicial review proceedings if it fails to discharge its public functions correctly. Yet the commission will be prevented from bringing judicial review proceedings against a governmental or other public authority which acts in a way that is not compatible with the convention rights. That one-sided fetter on the commission's powers is not in accordance with the broad mandate envisaged in the Paris Principles, and is not in the public interest. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agrees that the commission should not become the engine of human rights litigation beyond the equality field. That was a large pill to swallow but we swallowed it. However, the committee has made the moderate and practical recommendation that, to avoid becoming entirely toothless in tackling human rights issues, the commission should at least be able to seek judicial review in appropriate cases.
	That is what my amendment is designed to achieve. It would not undermine the victim test in Section 7 of the Human Rights Act because only victims would be able to seek personal relief under Section 7. The administrative court would ensure that the commission did not abuse the judicial review procedure, and the relief granted would be at the court's discretion and would usually be declaratory. It would enable difficult issues of legal interpretation and application to be resolved speedily by an authoritative and specialist court, usually where the underlying facts were not in dispute, as in the cases that I mentioned. It would avoid the need for individual victims to be found and funded—funded not by the commission, incidentally—to bring individual cases, with the commission unable to assist except by seeking to intervene as a third party. That process would be likely to increase legal costs and the complexity of the litigation, which would become triangular. The commission would have the necessary expertise and authority to bring such a case, with the benefit of its knowledge and experience in monitoring the law, its progress in achieving its aims, and the fruits of its statutory inquiries.
	The effect of the amendment would be much more modest than is the case in other countries such as the Republic of Ireland. There, under the Human Rights Commission Act 2000, which implemented the Good Friday agreement south of the Border, the Irish Human Rights Commission has been given much more extensive powers in addition to those given to the separate Equality Commission. The Irish Human Rights Commission may not only provide assistance in individual legal proceedings involving law or practice relating to human rights, but may also institute human rights proceedings of a wide variety in its own right.
	I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his willingness to meet me to discuss these important issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the Government are sympathetic to the object of the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall be very brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, knows, our concern with the amendment has always been to ensure that human rights cases are brought before our courts only by specific and identifiable people whose rights have been infringed. That was one reason why the victim test was put in the Human Rights Act. It is also why the European Court of Human Rights does not allow pure public interest challenges. The purpose was to enable people who could bring a claim in Strasbourg to bring that claim before the domestic courts.
	We have always been wary of undermining the commission's role in promoting awareness and good practice in relation to human rights. However, the noble Lord has made a forceful case for adopting a limited exception allowing the commission to bring cases under the Human Rights Act in the public interest. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I are reviewing and considering the noble Lord's arguments to give them the best possible consideration, and we will come back to him before Report.
	There are a couple of unintended consequences in the way in which the amendment is structured, but I shall not go into them as the noble Lord does not intend to press the amendment this evening. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that he will be able to withdraw it.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful. The Minister mentioned the victim test under the European human rights convention. It is for an international procedure, and there is no reason why we should allow a European international treaty to stultify good English and Scottish domestic procedures before administrative courts. We want to blend human rights into the fabric of our legal system; I am sure that that is not contentious. I am most grateful for the generous way in which the Minister replied, and am now in a state of excited suspense.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I knew that I was on a sticky wicket trying to deal with issues of human rights.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Public sector duties: assessment]:
	[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
	Clause 33 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Inquiries, Investigations and Assessments]:
	[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Page 67, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 148:
	Page 68, line 12, at end insert—
	"14A (1) Where a person is given a notice under paragraph 10 he shall disregard it, and notify the Commission that he is disregarding it, in so far as he thinks it would require him—
	(a) to disclose sensitive information within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (Intelligence and Security Committee),
	(b) to disclose information which might lead to the identification of an employee or agent of an intelligence service (other than one whose identity is already known to the Commission),
	(c) to disclose information which might provide details of processes used in recruiting, selecting or training employees or agents of an intelligence service,
	(d) to disclose information which might provide details of, or cannot practicably be separated from, information falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c), or
	(e) to make a disclosure of information relating to an intelligence service which would prejudice the interests of national security.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "intelligence service" means—
	(a) the Security Service,
	(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, and
	(c) the Government Communications Headquarters.
	(3) Where in response to a notice under paragraph 10 a person gives a notice to the Commission under sub-paragraph (1) above—
	(a) paragraphs 13 and 14 shall not apply in relation to that part of the notice under paragraph 10 to which the notice under sub-paragraph (1) above relates,
	(b) the Commission may apply to the tribunal established by section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for an order requiring the person to take such steps as may be specified in the order to comply with the notice, and
	(c) the following provisions of that Act shall apply in relation to proceedings under this paragraph as they apply in relation to proceedings under that Act (with any necessary modifications)—
	(i) section 67(7), (8) and (10) to (12) (determination),
	(ii) section 68 (procedure), and
	(iii) section 69 (rules).
	(4) Where the Commission receives information or documents from an intelligence service in response to a notice under paragraph 10, the Commission shall store and use the information or documents in accordance with any arrangements specified by the Secretary of State.
	(5) The recipient of a notice under paragraph 10 may apply to the High Court (in England and Wales) or the Court of Session (in Scotland) to have the notice cancelled on the grounds that the requirement imposed by the notice is undesirable for reasons of national security, other than for the reason that it would require a disclosure of a kind to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 149 to 152 not moved.]
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Public sector duties: compliance notice]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 153:
	Page 19, line 43, at end insert—
	"(5A) Paragraphs 12 and 14A of Schedule 2 shall have effect (with any necessary modifications) in relation to a requirement imposed by a notice under this section as they have effect in relation to a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 10 of that Schedule."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Equality and human rights enactments]:

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 20, line 14, leave out "and"

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 are probing amendments to illustrate that the work of the EOC in particular is not only concerned with the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act but also draws upon key pieces of employment legislation, particularly in respect of maternity and paternity leave, part-time work and employment rights. The statutes listed in these amendments are not the only relevant legislation, but they illustrate the position.
	In the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission, if the commission's remit is interpreted strictly according to the enactments listed in Clause 35, then key elements of its work would not be covered. This is because an increasing amount of discrimination legislation that it currently covers, or the legislation that has implications for discrimination, is covered in employment law. For example, of those cited in this amendment, the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employers to issue a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The way that the Maternity and Paternity Leave etc. Regulations 1999 operate—and any proposals to reform maternity leave provisions as set out in the Government's recent work and families consultation—is of material concern to the EOC. And the regulations of 2000 on part-time work for male and female workers apply to all aspects of pay and conditions of employment, contractual and non-contractual, and will require that the part-time worker should be paid and receive other benefits on a pro rata basis.
	The key point is what the Equality Bill allows the commission to do in relation to employment legislation. For example, under Clause 15 the commission will be allowed to issue codes of practice in connection with a matter addressed by the equality enactments. That will cover the kinds of legislation cited here, and that is welcome. But the commission will not be able to exercise its enforcement powers in relation to anything other than the equality enactments. That means, for example, that it will not be able to investigate why many employers do not carry out health and safety assessments of pregnant women and take enforcement action in connection with that.
	Similarly, the denial of access to training is a fundamental issue for many male and female part-time workers, but it would not be directly covered by the commission's enforcement remit. It would therefore be difficult for the commission to take enforcement action in relation to it.
	Access to flexible working for fathers and rights for those with unpaid caring responsibilities are also issues with which the EOC is concerned, but they often fall outside the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Government are proposing to extend the right to request to those with caring responsibilities, but as that is not a sex discrimination issue it would not fall within the scope of the commission; nor would it be covered by any other organisation.
	I believe that it is crucial that all these equality enactments continue to be covered by the commission. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify how they will be covered in the new legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have considerable sympathy with the EOC and with this amendment. I shall try to explain how I see the position so that I can be corrected when I am wrong.
	Under the European Communities Act 1972, any legislation that is relevant to an issue has to be read and given effect in accordance with European Community law. For example, if one looks at the Sex Discrimination Act, it does not say that in giving assistance to individuals the EOC can assist them to go to Luxembourg to have a test case before the Court of Justice. However, it was long ago established that the EOC could do that because its power under Section 75 of the SDA is stretched by the European Communities Act to cover EU legal matters. The same applies to the list of statutes in Clause 35(1). If they have an EU penumbra and directly affect rights, they are to be read and given effect in accordance with EU law. All of that is fine, except that lawyers like me have to read the whole mass of rubbish of one kind or another in order for the citizen to know what the law is.
	I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that when the golden age of the new, big, single equality Bill occurs, efforts will be made to ensure that EU law is, where possible, incorporated into it so that, as far as possible, men and women will have to read one Bill, rather than thousands of different regulations, directives and Luxembourg decisions. To that extent, I have sympathy with the amendment in so far as it is concerned with discrimination issues.
	I know that the Minister hates lists of any kind, but she has one in Clause 35(1). The problem is that if one has a list other people start adding to it, as the Minister rightly predicted. If one starts adding matters beyond discrimination to the list, it goes beyond the scope of the equality side of the Bill. I notice that in Clause 35(2) the equality and human rights enactments mean the equality enactments and the Human Rights Act, so there, at least, there is a broader notion than in the list in Clause 35(1).
	In short, I hope that when we get the big Bill, we will be able to incorporate all the relevant material into it, and consolidate it all in a user-friendly way. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how she draws the line between her list and the wider list in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall certainly try. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord so eloquently justify the existence of lawyers, not that it is necessary to do so here.
	I am well aware of what I said about lists. I do not think that the noble Lord should exaggerate my position on lists; the use of lists occasionally has value. However, I have a general view that although lists in legislation are occasionally necessary, one needs to be cautious about constantly seeing them as a solution, as we are sometimes a little prone to do. However, the list we have in this context is right, proper and valuable.
	I say to my noble friend that I absolutely recognise the EOC's work on critical issues—in particular its support of women in the workplace and attempt to enable parents and carers to make the life choices they want. The balancing of work and family life is essential and to be supported at all costs. We will look to the commission to continue the EOC's and the DRC's work in that area. We expect the commission to promote equality for women and men in their roles as carers, parents and part-time workers through its role of promoting understanding and good practice in equality and diversity. It might decide to use its inquiry powers to look into these sorts of issues, as these powers are not tied to equality and human rights legislation.
	Under Clause 12, noble Lords will know that the commission is able to comment on the impact of any law, or proposed change in law, relevant to its functions. So it will have ample scope to express its views and recommend action to government on those issues. Under Clause 14, the commission will be able to undertake research and provide general advice in these areas.
	The commission's regulatory role, however, is primarily concerned with the equality enactments, where it has powers to support cases, issue codes of practice and bring enforcement action. I believe that it would be inappropriate to extend this role into areas where other bodies have responsibilities. To do so could risk the loss of focus on the commission's key role in equality and human rights.
	However, under Clause 30, the commission will be able to provide legal assistance, as we have already indicated, if the case relates to a provision of the equality enactments, including where it is combined with a matter under other legislation, which would include those listed in this amendment. Additionally, there is no reason why the commission and other relevant bodies should not work closely together and produce joint guidance where that would be a helpful step.
	We do not believe that it is necessary or correct to extend the remit in the way the amendment proposes. However, there is an order-making power in Clause 35(3) which will allow the Secretary of State to add to the list of equality enactments in the future should he or she believe that it is necessary to do so. Furthermore, the Equalities Review and the Discrimination Law Review will no doubt consider the legal framework and the issues relating to those with familial and caring responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right on the EU law, as I understand it, but only those parts of EU law that we have implemented within the UK. The noble Lord nods, so I think that I am right on that.
	I therefore hope that my noble friend in particular will agree that these reviews are the correct places—that is, the Equalities Review and the Discrimination Law Review—to consider those issues that are beyond the scope of the current Bill. On that basis, and with that assurance, I hope that my noble friend is able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank my noble friend for that very helpful clarification of the position, and also the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his intervention explaining the position in much more detail than I could. I shall read with a great deal of interest the points that have been made. It may well be that the amendment is not necessary. I also understand my noble friend's problem with lists; I started by saying that this was not the whole list. Maybe she is right about that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 155 to 157 not moved.]
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [General]:
	[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Transfer of property: supplemental]:

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 159:
	Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
	"(6) The protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1794) shall be available upon application to all staff of the former Commissions."

Baroness Turner of Camden: This is a probing amendment. At Second Reading, I raised the matter of the application of the TUPE regulations to the staff of the former commissions. The wording in Clause 40 at first sight appears to cover the point that I raised at the time, but I am now not so sure. In the briefing that I received from one of the commissions, it would appear that the staff have some doubts as well. All would appear to depend on a direction that must be issued under Clause 39, which may be revoked where the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
	My amendment would make it clear that the protection of the TUPE regulations would be available to all staff of the former commissions. The wording of the relevant clause seems to be rather obscure, and it is clear that the staff of one of the commissions think so as well. The amendment's objective is to get the matter clear so far as they are concerned. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall endeavour to be helpful to my noble friend. We have already provided for the protections under TUPE to apply to the transfer of staff from the existing commissions to the CEHR, as set out in subsection (5). I can reassure my noble friend and confirm that it is our intention that the full protection of TUPE will apply to all staff of the existing three commissions.
	I also take the opportunity to reassure my noble friend that it is not our intention to transfer any staff to the new commission without the full protection of TUPE. We are working closely with employee representatives and senior management of the existing commissions to develop the most effective way forward in that and other related matters.
	We do not intend to use the provision in Clause 39(5) to transfer staff. Therefore it has not been necessary to make that power subject to TUPE. Clause 39(5) is simply a safety net to ensure that any residual rights or liabilities of the existing commissions are vested in the CEHR.
	We recognise the concerns and fears of all staff concerned over the establishment of the new commission and will continue to work hard over the next year to ensure that staff are kept informed of progress and consulted on the transfer. It is crucial to the success of the new organisation that the vast experience and expertise developed by staff in the three commissions is transferred to the new body. I hope that that explanation reassures my noble friend and that she is able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that assurance; in particular, her statement at the beginning that full protection of TUPE will apply to all staff of the existing commissions. That is an important assurance for which I am extremely grateful. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Amendments Consequential on Part 1]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 160:
	Page 73, line 26, leave out "an employment tribunal or" and insert "a"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 161. These are minor technical changes to the Bill that simply correct small errors related to the Estate Agents Act 1979, with which noble Lords are no doubt familiar.
	Amendment No. 160 removes the reference to an employment tribunal. The consequential amendment updates cross-references to findings of discrimination relevant to the supervision of estate agents. Those include findings that estate agents have published unlawful adverts or instructed other people to discriminate. Although employment tribunals and county courts can both make findings about unlawful adverts or instructions under Clause 27, it is only the county court that will make determinations relevant to the Estate Agents Act. Therefore, leaving the reference to the employment tribunal in the amendment may lead to ambiguities that should be avoided.
	Amendment No. 161 ensures that the consequential amendment to the Estate Agents Act reflects references to interdict in paragraph (2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Estate Agents Act and thereby relevant in Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162:
	Page 73, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) In the words following paragraph 2(h) after "injunction" insert ", interdict"."
	Page 73, line 39, at end insert—

"Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (c. 47)

38A (1) The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In section 4(2) (sums which may be paid out of the Scottish Legal Aid Fund), after paragraph (ab) insert—
	"(ac) any sums payable by the Board under section 17(2D) of this Act;".
	(3) In section 17 (contributions and payments out of property recovered), after subsection (2B) insert—
	"(2C) Subsection (2D) below applies where, after applying sums paid to the Board under subsection (2A) above in respect of the expenses of any party in any proceedings—
	(a) there is a surplus in the Fund on the account of the party; and
	(b) the party received, in respect of the same proceedings, assistance from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights under section 30 of the Equality Act 2005 (c. 00) (power of the Commission to provide legal assistance).
	(2D) The Board shall apply the surplus to pay to the Commission any sums due to it under section 31(2) of that Act (Commission's entitlement to recover expenses incurred in providing assistance) in respect of the assistance provided by it to the party.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Transitional: the Commission]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 23, line 40, after "for" insert "any of"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164 to 166. The four amendments to Clause 43(1) are minor and technical amendments proposed simply to clarify the position about the transitional period in the clause. They are intended to express beyond doubt that the start of the transitional period will be the commencement of any parts of Clauses 1 to 3 and Schedule 1. Similarly, the commencement of any part or to any extent of Clauses 8 to 34 will be the point at which any transitional period ends. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 166:
	Page 23, line 41, after first "force" insert "(to any extent)"
	Page 23, line 41, after second "force" insert "(to any extent)"
	Page 24, line 2, after "34" insert "(to any extent)".
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
	Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 18 minutes past nine o'clock.
	Correction
	At col. GC 79 of Hansard for 7 July, the contribution of the Lord Astor of Hever on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2005 was inadvertently omitted. The following should be inserted between the end of the Baroness Crawley's speech moving the order and that of the Lord Addington:

Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to renew for a further year the obsolescent legal framework in which our men and women serve. We know that it is obsolescent; the Government have said so. We know that it is due to be replaced; they have said that too, and the noble Baroness has confirmed it, with the promise of a tri-service discipline Bill to be introduced later in this Session.
	The Defence Committee in another place published, in the dying days of the last Parliament, a carefully considered and thoroughly well-documented report on matters that this important Bill should address and on how the parliamentary proceedings on this Bill could most usefully be conducted. Those suggestions included making time available to look at draft clauses in advance of the full text; also for as wide a consultation as possible. I venture to suggest that Members of this House and those of another place are very much among those who should be consulted. The Commons Defence Committee suggests that draft clauses would be a very good way to do that.
	Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness what are the Government's proposals for handling the successor legislation to the measure we are now debating. Why, after all these years of preparation, 10 or more, are there still no draft clauses available, only weeks before the full text is to be introduced? The noble Baroness apologised for the use of the words "modernise" and "harmonise". To some extent she explained them. I think that we will want to come back to those issues later in the year. She said that the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, was looking forward to debating the Bill later this year. I also very much look forward to debating it and to improving it wherever possible. Correction
	Additionally, in col. GC 100, two Motions taken formally were omitted. They follow the first regulations on the Pension Protection Fund and precede the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005. The entries are as follows:

Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Amendment Order 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Amendment Order 2005.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pension Protection Fund (Reference of Reviewable Matters to the PPF Ombudsman) Regulations 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pension Protection Fund (Reference of Reviewable Matters to the PPF Ombudsman) Regulations 2005.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.